All the other bigblockers are making better arguments than me. Maybe I should just shut up for a while. Carry on.
All of your arguments are equally specious ... and not just you, but all of them should learn some humility and know when to shut up. Folks you see whats the idiotic part of this whole discussion? Both solutions 2MB/4MB blocks and Segwit/LN/etc will solve this issue longterm. Maybe Bitcoin is better shortterm with one solution but longterm it wont matter. BUT what really could hurt Bitcoin longterm is that silly fight that has embarked between silly nerd kids unable to listen to each other and unable to do compromises! So everybody step back a little and breathe, Bitcoin won't die no matter which way we go, but this civilwar has to come to an end! |
|
|
|
i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign! Do you really believe those chart buddy numbers? I mean really, if you look at Blockchain.info, you get spikes between 45% and 75%, but currently, the average is around 60%. https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-sizeI believe that full blocks is a good sign, too - of increased adoption ... so it is a decent problem to have..... even though some sky-is-falling panic mongerers are engaged in ongoing apparent scare strategies that seem to be aimed at causing quicker decisions than seems to be necessary.... I am a bit more confident in blockchain.info numbers as depicted in the above graph, and I would be interested to hear why those numbers are supposedly an inaccurate depiction of the current state of affairs or the urgency of the matter. maybe one has to subtract those blocks that are empty on purpose |
|
|
|
i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign! By your (very stupid) logic we should move down the limit to 100kB or even 10kB since it would bring even fuller block and even bigger transaction fees. Why don't we do that? The "stupid logic" goes more transactions = more adoption and isn't so stupid after all.  |
|
|
|
i love those full blocks! its a fckn good sign! |
|
|
|
never a dull moment in cryptoland |
|
|
|
"perfect" imo would be to give every stakeholder voting rights depending on his stake. because who has the right to decide what a cryptocurrency should if not those who own it?
Yes, but what of the miners/pool ops etc and their voting rights? pool operators should have no rights, i can set you up a pool in one hour. miners, yes miners indeed brought something to the table, their hardware is expensive and secures the network. nevertheless imo POW has no advantage over POS so basically you could switch completely to POS. |
|
|
|
Nice pump. Any particular reason?
Dash has solved the governance problem that Bitcoin has already. could you elaborate? and what's happening on the 18th btw? thanks the issue with bitcoin is that there is no one who has the authority to decide which way to go. the miners have it in some way but as they are hesitant to decide its all so difficult at the moment. dash has with the masternode-voting system a perfect way of deciding which way to develop, as those that have big stakes in a currency are the ones that should decide. OK, but I'm not really convinced. Giving large stakeholders voting rights hardly sounds "perfect". To be clear this pump is because of a birthday celebration? on the 18th? there is no specific news? "perfect" imo would be to give every stakeholder voting rights depending on his stake. because who has the right to decide what a cryptocurrency should if not those who own it? |
|
|
|
Nice pump. Any particular reason?
Dash has solved the governance problem that Bitcoin has already. could you elaborate? and what's happening on the 18th btw? thanks the issue with bitcoin is that there is no one who has the authority to decide which way to go. the miners have it in some way but as they are hesitant to decide its all so difficult at the moment. dash has with the masternode-voting system a perfect way of deciding which way to develop, as those that have big stakes in a currency are the ones that should decide. |
|
|
|
I just check my poloniex account and found these sell orders of mine: 2014-02-16 00:06:39 Sell 0.00056690 50.00000000 0.02834500
2014-02-16 00:06:30 Sell 0.00056680 50.00000000 0.02834000
2014-02-16 00:06:30 Sell 0.00056690 50.00000000 0.02834500
2014-02-16 00:06:06 Sell 0.00056610 100.00000000 0.05661000
2014-02-15 17:40:35 Sell 0.00048200 100.00000000 0.04820000
Yes I sold DASH (or DRK at that time) for 0.0005 per coin  i sold some too at 50 because i wanted to build a stack of litecoin. not much though... |
|
|
|
Nice pump. Any particular reason?
Dash has solved the governance problem that Bitcoin has already. |
|
|
|
Stop defending him, he does not deserve it.
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." Lauda's just worried now that it appears he's been bootlicking all the petty tyrants and would-be technocrats that have impeded Bitcoin's destiny. The internet remembers. The tide is turning tho, the free market incentives upon which Bitcoin was built might just work... Bitfury, Bitmain, BW, KnC have taken the gloves off and are asserting their right of vote by hashrate. Wonder who's next? Makes me more bullish than ever for the long term. Short term, it's gonna be a little messy, lots of rage dumping and gnashing of teeth. When we emerge at the other end of the tunnel though... it may turn out to be a glorious spring day, with the summer halving right around the corner  Maybe, but i dont wanna loose the core devs. They are important as fuck! Just with Gavin and two, three others we wont be able to move on, we have to integrate them into the eventual 2MB version. If they fail to build peace it will get very difficult... |
|
|
|
People that are censored don't get featured in NYT articles and mentioned in R3 testimony broadcasted from every tv channel, bud!
Why can't the mainstream press just leave our Bitcoin alone? LOL, are you asking the same questions when Bitcoin surges after some TV/press brought another special about Bitcoin? Bitcoin/blockchain is an interesting evolving technology its obv that they cover it. |
|
|
|
So this is all because of Mike?  Mike only stated facts. Small blockians are those to blame. Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary! Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen! Drama queen or not, he had some valid points - not necessary technically, but about the whole deadlock situation and censorship. Ofc, he should not go to the stupid mainstream media, who want the blood of bitcoin. Still, he raised good points in his blog post (not in the NYT article!!!) about that there should NOT be a fee market, which is arising artificially, based on an old DoS prevention mechanism (which was always thought to be temporary!). There is no fee market (or shouldn't be), this is system with a >6bil$ market cap, with less than 0,1% world population using it, and they ALREADY want to develop a blockage with transaction throughput?? Just count: doesn't matter, how high fees go - it is still impossible to do more than 4-7 ts/s!!! Fees do not solve this hardcap!! People will just not transact. That's why the Harn "whistleblow" in MSM caused panic sell, many realized we MUST act NOW. Check out, 70% of big miners/ processing companies /exchanges already signed Bitcoin Classic https://bitcoinclassic.com/ after 2 days... Or will they be just censored again? You mean 70-80% of the industry can be censored? :-) Its not a "whistleblow" cause the public and MSM dont care about such details, all they understand is that Bitcoin has inner fights going on. You see a whistleblow is usually something that wakes up important players that take action then, but in this case who did he wake up? Nobody, cause all important players are already aware of the issue. To cause a crash and to demolish the image of Bitcoin in public further is just what it is an asshole action. He may have had some valid point, nevertheless his NYT article overshadows this completely as we did know those things before. Also his medium article is full of bullshit also, i would say 75% is just crap and 25% is valid concern. |
|
|
|
You know the media has caught up on the story and barely any reported the story correctly as in "Mike is wrong and Bitcoin died 80+ times already". I've got sent a few screenshots from Facebook (which I don't use) from a few partners already. Quite unfortunate that it has reflected itself this heavily on the price within a single day.
He sold himself to the media as one important (if not the most important) developer. Which is a fucking joke! Yes he did some work but i wouldnt name him in the Top10. Hilarious that he could make such an public impression... |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0iArSIU0Z8&feature=youtu.be&t=47m16shier sieht man sehr gut wie eng Hearn sein vorgehen abgestimmt hat mit R3. meines erachtens verdient so jemand nichts anderes als von der community haushoch rausgeworfen zu werden, unglaublich das er versucht bitcoin als solches noch schaden zuzufügen während er dem projekt den rücken zukehrt...
|
|
|
|
Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary!
Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen!
It appears to be too much of a coincidence the timing of it all with this -- https://youtu.be/R0iArSIU0Z8?t=47m16sLooks to me to be a coordinated attack by R3.(42 banks against bitcoin) I dont know, but one thing is for sure Hearn did tremendous damage and he did it on purpose and thats whats so disgusting in this whole matter. Like some kid who destroys your toy after you told him that he isnt allowed to play with. I dont want to have folks like him in the dev team no matter what stance on the blocksize issue they have. |
|
|
|
So this is all because of Mike? Mike only stated facts. Small blockians are those to blame. Nope, Mike went to New York Times, told "Bitcoin is dead!" and informed the public about the ongoing inner-Bitcoin fight. THAT did fucking damage to BTC and was completely unnecessary! Its not about big or small blocks its about being a fucking dramaqueen! |
|
|
|
wut  ? we gotta do wut "blockchain blacklists" ? ok everyone all chant at same time: "china must go" "we want blockchain blacklists"! .... follow up with a give me a "WOOT WOOT" . Clearly their influence is making Bitcoin too inscrutable. Possibly even more dangerous than centralization. yes.. the evil chinese miners and their evil Huobi must GO! there is no choice, the evil chinese has forced us to implement "blockchain blacklists" . we're putting chinese miners on no-fly lists too. By the sound of it increasing blocks will invoke the great fire wall of China and btc will become more decentralised almost overnight. It's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas the funny thing is chinese miners are not against bigger blocks, thats just some bullshit that hearn pulled out of his ass. the only thing chinese miners really fear is the price of bitcoin collapsing because of some kiddy-nerd-developer fights of immature folks. so they said at the last scaling bitcoin conference do what ever you have to do but do it without a big breakup or fight or whatever. they even are in favor of 2MB but they want the core team to do it without big fights and media stir. |
|
|
|
How is increasing to 2mb as bad as increasing supply past 21m?
It is called a instigating a "precedent": if you can manage it for one protocol parameter, you can do it for everything else. You are aware of that the blocksize limit wasn't even a parameter in the original bitcoin version? Satoshi declared it as a temporary tool that should help as no other solutions are found and that should obv be adapted if things change. Completely dumbfuck to compare it to the 21Mio lol |
|
|
|
This entire mess is stupid. It's not a choice between bigger blocks OR better blocks. Do both.
Tell that Maxwell and others. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
