If we bitcoin remains as is, soon transactions could take up to 1 hour to confirm, meaning bitcoin will become a useless micro payment tool..
But if we choose to increase the block size bitcoin will become more centralized?
So whats the solution?
My take on it is that bitcoin should remain as is, meaning the block sizes should remain the same, and transaction confirmation time is not an issue, since bitcoin was never intended to be a quickest way to send, decentralization was the main goal, lets not forget that.
So bitcoin transactions taking hours to be confirmed is nto an issue, bitcoin is the gold of the crypto world, other alt coins that are quicker to use an more practical for micro payment situations will emerge, but bitcoin should remain as the back bone of crypto currency.
Yes quick confirmation is essential for micro payments, like buying something at a store, you don't want to wait an hour to wait until the payment is confirmed. But bitcoin is not only used for micro payments, some people use bitcoin to send money over seas, as seen with cyprus and greece, sending millions or even billions of dollars any where around the world in a number of hours doesn't sound so bad does it?
So in my opinion bitcoin should be left untouched, soon new alt coins will fill in the void space beneath bitcoin and will complete the crypto world.
What's the sense of bitcoin when it is slow? Bitcoin has only a couple of advantages and you think it makes sense to take an essential one out? Only because there are usecases where you can wait some hours does not mean that the majority of the transactions are time sensitive. Bitcoin would simply be useless when you can't trust into a timely confirmation. There is simply no good reason to cripple bitcoin artificially with 1 megabyte blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Why couldn't one of the core developers simply include the 8mb code into the core and publish it? Did the blockstream developers block that from happening? Then gavin should have done this and create his own fork and not join forces with hearn and his dangerous ideas.
|
|
|
|
Belgian doctors give healthy woman, 24, green light to die by euthanasia because of 'suicidal thoughts' Laura, 24, does not suffer from any terminal disease or physical illness She told doctors who assessed her condition that 'life, that's not for me' Five people a day currently die with the assistance of medics in Belgium New figures show that euthanasia numbers have jumped by a third Belgian doctors are planning to kill a perfectly healthy 24-year-old woman by euthanasia because she is suffering from 'suicidal thoughts'. It is estimated that five people a day in Belgium die with the assistance of doctors, ranging from those with terminal illness to others with chronic, but not life threatening ailments. Now, a woman, known only as the fictitious name Laura, has been told she qualifies for euthanasia, despite not having a terminal disease. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3141564/Belgian-doctors-healthy-woman-green-light-die-euthanasia-suicidal-thoughts.htmlThese doctors have lost it. I would also blame the laws that allow the doctors to give the go ahead. These doctors have lost their sense for the Hippocratic Oath they once vowed. It says they should never harm a human. Clearly they don't fix a human by doing this. |
|
|
|
|
The problem with that is that it is mostly a temporary status these persons are in. Nearly every person had though about suicide already, a few even attempt it. But those who don't succeed are happy years later that they still live.
It should be mandatory to go to a lengthy therapy with doctors that don't earn from killing. That might be the only solution.
|
|
|
|
Hi all,
I just heard from an "expert" on Bloomberg that a higher blocksize will result in a lower btc price because more transactions will go through. But why will this result in a lower btc price?!?
Thanks in advance
He most probably did not say that it will result in a lower btc price but in a lower transaction fee. That is not true compared to now since the fees will stay the same as now. Though when we would keep the 1 MB block size limit then this would mean that at one points there are more transactions than the network can put in blocks. That would lead to higher fees paid because the higher a fee the higher the chance to get your transaction confirmed. That's all.  |
|
|
|
This is not the version available for download from official XT site. Official XT version has a backdoor that allows NSA/CIA and other parties to start ddos attack that blocks Tor and de-anonymizes users. Did you buy this account?  You surely should not believe every world conspiracy gossip. If there would be a backdoor then it would be known already. Though i agree. Hearn is stupid to add such things. If he thinks he will win more users then he is really stupid. |
|
|
|
How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?
We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.
Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin. ^hmf^
Like these guys: https://blockstream.com/team/ ? Let have a broader look at all the bitcoin "expert" to see where the problem lies , ok? : | Developer | Employer | In favor of | | Gavin Andresen | MIT | 8mb+ | | Mike Hearn | Google, now Vinumeris | 8mb+ | | Meni Rosenfeld | Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil | tentative 8mb+ | | Jeff Garzik | Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc. | 2mb+ | | Peter Todd | Viacoin et al. | 1mb | | Luke-JR | Subcontracted by Blockstream | 1mb | | Adam Back | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Matt Corallo | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Gmaxwell | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Peter Wuille | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7) | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb | | laanwj | MIT | 1mb |
See any pattern? Remember Blockstream got tens of millions from investors. VCs dont just invest to have a fair game with competitors, they invest because they want to jump ahead of the game. Take away the Blockstream crew and you still have an undecided split. Plus, some questionable experts on that list and others not even listed. I'm not gonna argue about that but this list include all the people that this forum consider "consensus network" (5 person from the list) That in itself is a centralized issue but everyone ignore it. Sure, one cannot but wonder if 5 developers have personal motivation for not wanting larger blocks but.... Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks) Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway, doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say? If I was to attempt to take over then that is exactly what I would do and blame the other devs for having personal motivation. There is no immediate need for larger blocks, and since it would have been handled by Blockstream, then what is the deal with Gavin and Mike? The fact that they have blacklisting code doesn't make them very credible to me, and of course the way they are attempting to take over. Personally, I do not agree that ANY member of the core team should be in the core dev team if they have personal gain by doing or not doing something. That includes both sides of this circus we are seeing lately. And to be honest I agree with the OP. It is time the community stepped up and removed them from their "thrones" because their are not working for the good of Bitcoin and the community anymore. Um... with the use of Blockstream bitcoin gets fixed? That is not a solution. That is NOT using bitcoin. Nothing more. It's avoiding it's use and tunneling transactions into an altcoin. And Gavin came up with that because we already know that at the end of 2016 we will have full blocks. It would be too late to act then. Not to mention that bitcoin would die instantly when amazon would decide to accept bitcoin payments tomorrow. Because bitcoin could not handle this amount of transactions. The new users would have a terrible experience and that would be a huge hit for bitcoin. No, there is no way around raising the blocksize limit or even dropping it completely. I'm no fan of hearn for sure. And i don't like that gavin went to hearn. But as far as i read nearly no one supporting xt wants all the other stupid things hearn wants. So it is only a vehicle to get the 8mb blocks. Then they would use core again. |
|
|
|
The development is about much more than just this block size debate.. Security patches are also a major thing, as well as any other improvements to the wallet and network.
If you can do all that, please go a head and code a better proposition for a fork.
I might be wrong but it only would need someone who drops all the code that is unwanted. Let the core devs create the patches and include them then. Adding code should not be that hard if you at least understand the code. In the case this software actually wins the race then surely developers will flow to that versions development. |
|
|
|
what about proposing something better if you really want to say fuck that fuck this?, the point is that there isn't something better there is no good alternative to increase the block size, and blockstream isn't one of these for sure
I think the idea was more to build a version that is something like bitcoin xt to include the bigger block size but drops all the controversial ideas that hearn comes up with. I wonder how tempted he feels to include tainting. A version cleared of this would surely become the hit since i don't know any bitcoiner who supports bitcoin xt and likes all these things he wants additionally. |
|
|
|
How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?
We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.
Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin. ^hmf^
Exactly. And this is a pain. It seems bitcoin development is not rewarding enough so some developers search a side income. This wouldn't be a problem when there would not be an incentive to hurt bitcoin by doing so. Since that way you can draw more power and money to your side. F...ing politics. |
|
|
|
Actually this would be horrible for price. If it ain't broke don't fix it, every time someone tries to change protocol price goes down. Bitcoin needs to be stable to grow.
I don't think so. Bitcoin has no future without a blocksize increase. That is pure logic and not disputable. So giving bitcoin a future is the way to go. Of course some people spread fear but it doesn't matter which coin wins. When you held bitcoins when the fork happened then you would have bitcoins in core and bitcoins in the fork. You can't really lose with that. |
|
|
|
There is very little incentive for developers with the right skill set to jump into this role. Besides, what guarantees are there that this new group would better align with your particular needs?
That's one point. The coding language is really not easy. I'm a good coder, i think about myself, but this language is really no fun. On top the code is not easy. So finding someone who is able to do this is hard. Theoretically we only would need to take xt and drop all shit hearn's dictatorical mind comes up with. Then spread this version. Or take bitcoin core and add the 8 mb part. It's a pity that instead something like this happens, we get bitcoin cores that look like xt's. There is no reason for it's existance except claiming that all xt nodes are fake. Really stupid that no community member is able to handle this. |
|
|
|
They can try to trace it but I don't think there was any attempt to create a blacklist.
I also believe OP is mistaking XT's proposal of IP connection priority with a wide blacklist of tainted coins
As the flow of btcs increase, ultimately any attempts to blacklist tainted coins would be similar to blacklisting all dollar bills with traces of cocaine.
It's not so very different from tainting fiat money through their id. If you happen to have such a bill and the bank recognizes it then you lose that bill. It doesn't matter anymore that you received it legally in the local kiosk, you are the one who loses. No refund. And yes, nowadays it would not be possible anymore to taint scam coins from a longer time ago, but still, it might be possible for scams happening now. It might be OP is mixing something. Unfortunately Hearn had both these stupid ideas. Ok, deprioritizing is not banning actually, so it is not as bad. But really, Hearn is stupid. He should push his 8 MB block and collect followers. Instead he pushes things where he knows that nobody likes them. This guy is somewhat not a strategist. |
|
|
|
Stop spreading FUD please. We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.
I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this). I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B. There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing. How are my coins in address B still blacklisted? The coins itself are tainted. Let's say you receive 5 tainted coins to an address. Later you receive 2 more untainted coins to the same address. Then you send 7 coins to an exchange. And the first 5 coins will be known as tainted since these coins have a fixed way through the blockchain. It doesn't mean that you know who held them though. But it shows these coins are tainted and someone can block them. The current owner needs to explain where he received them from when he doesn't want to lose them then. I did say 'taints ... to some extent'. The anonymity set size of a single transaction is limited by the number of parties in it, obviously. Unless chaumian blinding, zero knowledge proofs, or something dazzling has occurred, my statement is correct. Dude, 'taints' by whom? That's not a feature of the protocol, you can 'taint' how many coins you want, I don't care about your 'taint', and after a few transactions you'll be unable to know who has the coins... That's why after so many thefts no one was able to come up with a system to blacklist coins, it requires centralization and absolute control over the system. |
|
|
|
Stop spreading FUD please. We can see every address that coins go to, or come from. Even passing thru a tumbler taints the outputs to some extent.
I send 'tainted' coins from address A to address X (which happens to be a mixer, but besides the mixer admin and myself, nobody can know this). I receive different, untainted coins (completely unrelated to the ones I earlier sent to X) from a different address Y to address B. There exists NO chain of transaction between X and Y. Also not indirect, or coinjoined, or whatever. Nothing. How are my coins in address B still blacklisted? Not your coins in Address X. But someone received your coins. And this person then might withdraw them through an exchange. Their tainting system shows them these coins are tainted and they request an explaination about the coins, otherwise they will block them. It might be that the mixer owner won't give your name though. That's why this system is stupid. Real scammers would know how to avoid the trouble but poor guys would have the problems. |
|
|
|
Even if someone was really trying to create a blacklisting mechanism to be used in bitcoin, I don't think it would be possible due to the nature of the system, in a centralized system like Ripple it can be made, not in bitcoin.
Can you elucidate us on how this could be achieved?
It is possible and was discussed under the name tainting. It is similar to fiat money where you note down banknote id numbers when they were used for a robbery. You can identify the flow of every coin. So when a coin came from a scam then it could be shown. The plan was to investigate where the owner got these coins from in order to track down the scammer. In fact scammers would be smart and exchange somehow. The one ending with such coins would have to explain who he is or would have coins that are worth less than they are. And yes, that is one of Hearns suggestions. It is not implemented luckily. I support the 8MB though. Only not hearn. |
|
|
|
|
I have to say i feel sometimes the same. The community is filled with really nasty behaviours of persons. The most i hate are:
* Scammers
* Security issuers with communication problems
* Users who lost with an investment and threaten relatives
* Inept businessmans
Though i wont go since i think there exist a lot of really nice persons too. And it is a melting pot of businesses that could become a success. Smart people meet here.
|
|
|
|
11th septemper 2012 on a website similar to localbitcoins. I think i wanted to check it out after hearing about someone earning money with his computer. After asking about it i decided that buying is better than mining.  It seems to be a rule of thumb that is correct most of the time. |
|
|
|
Beruhige dich mal. Ich finde es toll dass du dich so einsetzt aber du gehst permanent weiter als Chefin geschrieben hat. Damit greifst du sie nur an und überzeugen kann man so auch nicht.
Mag sein dass du Leute kennengelernt hast die schlimmer über Migranten denken aber du wirfst Chefin schlimmeres Denken vor als sie schreibt. Das hat dann weniger damit zu tun wie sie denkt als was in deinem Kopf vorgeht.
Das bleibt doch immer noch mir überlassen - oder? Chefin stellt ständig haltlose und falsche Aussagen in den Raum, also muß dieser User auch mit Reaktionen rechnen. Ich weiß nicht, was Chefin denkt. Du vielleicht? Das hier Geschriebene jedenfalls ist mehr als dünn und fragwürdig. Klar kannst du dich aufregen wenn du willst. Genauso wie ich dich auf deine Diskussionskultur hinweisen kann. Und genau weil du nicht weisst was Chefin denkst solltest du ihr nicht immer vorwerfen was du glaubst was sie denken würde. Das sagt eben nichts über sie sondern über dich aus. Ich belasse es jetzt dabei. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
