|
Look, I can kind of understand why BCH has some support. I think it's stupid, but I can see it.
But why the fuck would anyone continue to think faktoshi and BSV has any validity what-so-ever. He clearly has no idea what he is talking about. He had to plagiarise his phD, despite going to pretty much the worst University in Australia. He has been caught lying 987,392 987,393 times. He is a state loving boot licker. WTF is going on in these people's heads.
|
|
|
|
I opposed segwit2x and BCH because I oppose everything they stand for, and I prefer the smallest block size possible because the smaller the better if second layer solutions are available.
to me it seems like your opposition is the mob mentality that @Cøbra pointed out in the end, and not with reasonable research. the funny thing is that bcash used the same mob approach to exist. not to mention that you are confusing different things. you put an altcoin that was maliciously created without respecting consensus and majority's vote/support with the proposals in same category. you can't oppose a proposal just because you don't like the person that supports that proposal or the altcoin result. same way bcashers can't oppose SegWit just because they don't like blockstream. for instance the only way you can oppose a proposal like SegWit2x is if you have any technical reasons why a hard fork to increase the base block size to 2 MB (weight to 8 MB) is bad while weighing both pros and cons of it. I'm not sure what you are arguing here? My reasons for opposing segwit2x was not technical, aside from the inherent risks in any hardfork, the proposed implementation was fine by me. My opposition was to the process. At the time Segwit2x was announced as an agreement without even releasing any technical information about it all, it was just, "a bunch of us got together in a room and decided what is going to happen". Which is the same reason I hate bcash, it's centralised control. It was made as though the community had no say, like we didn't matter. Miners and corporations had decided how things will go, which is bullshit. You speak like segwit2x was a proposal, when it wasn't, it was presented as a fait accompli |
|
|
|
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks' its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ... think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !! There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo. Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not. Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug. Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option. I broadly agree with all of the above, changing the protocol should always be difficult. And I guess everything becomes political in the end. Smaller block are better, as I said, it's just before Roger and his moronic minions took one side of the debate, there was more consensus that at some point an increase would be needed. Looking back I guess it was not very clear we would win the argument against an unelected cabal instituting segwit2x without community agreement, so the entrenched positions were a necessity. It's just now the political situation is such that layer two kind of has to work, because there is no going back. So the side we all picked back then is the side we have to stick with, because any kind of conversation now seems to be a signal you are siding with the idiots, rather than a separate argument. Hopefully BCH will reach its logical price floor of 0 at some point, which might make things easier. |
|
|
|
56 - Room101 Thanks  |
|
|
|
|
Man, this is an interesting one. On one hand I would love to bid. On the other hand, it's a lot to have tied up in one international shipment at the moment, I'm not sure if I could handle the stress. Not 100% decided either way, but for something of this value I may want to wait until I'm allowed to fly internationally to come pick it up in person.
|
|
|
|
Then contribute? It doesn't get built on its own.
I've yet to see much that's convinced me that LNs are anything other than an interesting curio but I no doubt would've thought the same of the internet had I been introduced to it in its nascent stages.
I don't have time to contribute. Are you suggesting unless one contributes one isn't allowed to discuss or criticize the current approach? When I tell organisations what the roadmap looks like for the code I'm writing them, they make decisions based around that, and if my shit was still unusable 5 years later I would be broke and they would be pissed. I opposed segwit2x and BCH because I oppose everything they stand for, and I prefer the smallest block size possible because the smaller the better if second layer solutions are available. But its been fucking years, and if its going to be another 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, we need to start having a conversation about wtf we should do. What if they are never really possible? Do we just give up and say, oh well, I guess bitcoin doesn't work, fun while it lasted? What is it takes 10 years to iron out all the bugs? Do we just have censorship resistant money for the wealthy? People have stopped fighting over this, which would be fine if there was a working solution. But there isn't, so we should keep fighting over it, because that's how progress it made. Luckily BCH happened, so we can have the fight with hopefully most of the morons out of the space. Probably not the thread to start fighting over it, but on twitter, reddit and here to a lesser extent, it seems like everyone has decided that the bcash war being won decided all future wars relating to blocksize and hardforks. Just because bch was wrong in their arguments about them, doesn't mean all future arguments about them are also wrong. |
|
|
|
Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.
The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives.
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
I tend to agree, more-so over time. Huge blocks may not be the answer, corporate take overs and stupid backroom segwit2x agreements are definitely not the answer, but the fact that reasonable discussion around small blocksize increases and hardforks in general are now verboten is bad for bitcoin. It doesn't help that the Blockstream corporate strategy seems to be based around being insufferable internet trolls who both simultaneously love to mock everyone who disagrees with them, whilst crying victim when anyone mocks them in return. It seems Bitcoin now has fucking "influencers" who use social media and combative shit posting to raise their profile in order to personally profit from bitcoin, gain influence and raise their fucking twitter followers. A plague on all their fucking houses. Personally I think lightening is not terrible code, which is basically pretty high praise, but putting all eggs in one basket, especially an unbuilt, untested basket is fucking stupid, and while the most simple solution of a small block increase may very well not be the correct one, it should be open for discussion. Bitcoin at a high price will make >100 sat/byte unaffordable to anyone who isn't rich, which is not the kind of censorship resistant money I want or got involved for. Some kind of layer two solution is needed, but it's taking a lot fucking longer than expected, so maybe a reevaluation is in order? |
|
|
|
Thanks |
|
|
|
|
Let's just get these up to the minimum they are worth and skip a few pages.
0.141BTC
|
|
|
|
|
Wow!
Thanks for this thread @krogothmanhattan, I confess I didn't even know these existed, the whole thread was fascinating. No doubt some of these are floating around at the bottom of deskdraws of people that forgot they even had them.
In 20 years they'll be like Picasso's that people find in the barn attic of their grandfathers!
|
|
|
|
Good morning Bitcoinland. More of the same: up, down, and ending up sideways... currently $9769USD/$13562CAD (Bitcoinaverage). Yawn. Stronger coffee please. looking at that chart, can't I see a similar "Elusive Golden Cross" a few months ago? Immediately afterwards bitcoin fell of a fucking cliff.
yea, because TA cannot predict real life events, like the virus or the price of Bitcoinftfy  |
|
|
|
Why would having more miners make any difference in fees. Any miner will mine the highest value transactions, that's just like saying wheels will fall into potholes.
*shakes head*
uh... supply and demand? ? The only supply and demand involved is demand for space in each block. The supply of space is fixed, at 1MB. It doesn't matter if there is one miner or one billion, or what the hash rate of the network is. The only thing that sets fees is how much people are willing to pay to get into a block. When demand is low, fees are low, and visa-versa. The miners compete for solved blocks and fees. The more miners, the less each of them gain and the less each of them have the ability to manipulate the market as a whole. Also it's 2MB. Remember? We had that whole civil war on the best way to increase the size? You mean by mining empty blocks to artificially increase demand for block space? Admittedly I have not looked for a while, but does that still happen? The only time when the mempool is full that I see empty blocks is if one is mined immediately after another one. And technically it's still 1MB in the code, we just don't have to include all of the transaction data we used to, so we can squish more in. |
|
|
|
Why would having more miners make any difference in fees. Any miner will mine the highest value transactions, that's just like saying wheels will fall into potholes.
*shakes head*
uh... supply and demand? ? The only supply and demand involved is demand for space in each block. The supply of space is fixed, at 1MB. It doesn't matter if there is one miner or one billion, or what the hash rate of the network is. The only thing that sets fees is how much people are willing to pay to get into a block. When demand is low, fees are low, and visa-versa. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
