Haters are ok because they are harmless. He is worse: A bad actor.

You can say you love bitcoin 100 times a day, but it's your actions that define you. And his actions undermine bitcoin as a currency and store of value.

I think it'll be way safer for BTC to go into Segwit, after LTC does.

It's unlikely to find all possible bugs on BTC's testnet, so LTC can serve as a test platform.

Paradoxically, in the long-long run (20yr horizon), nobody will care about l2 solutions as l1 capabilities will be more than adequate to satisfy the volume of direct txs (except if we have unforseen spikes in kbytes per tx, like quantumproof signatures). L2 solutions are only* needed in the short and mid term, as block sizes can't grow too big right now without centralizing bitcoin, yet txs/sec must increase.

* L2 solutions might also be needed for adding more functionality, beyond txs.

Aha, ok, yes much better now. I haven't got an avx2 cpu so it breaks down when I try to compile everything and I had just some of the files to check out. Btw, I see that there are some versions with very large ram windows, which obviously exceed cache levels. There is a (v)movntdq(a) instruction (sse 4.1+ I think) that bypasses cache operations for faster mem writing if the data involved aren't going to be cached in any useful way. You might want to check whether it's useful for this case.

I remember something, like a year ago, when there was the 'agreement' between some dev delegation and the miners, where I read there was some kind of pressure to get to an agreement because apparently someone had gone long.

The economic attack scenario is not out of the question, where fud or actual attacks are introduced to harm the price which was pre-shorted.

In investments/finance/economics, there are two powers which are of great importance:

1) The ability to predict the market
2) The ability to direct the market

...as in both cases you can profit big.

Miners can launch economic attacks due to (2) and then profit.

Οι αλλαγες δεν επιβαλλονται. Οποιος θελει, τρεχει οτι software θελει - αρκει οι κανονες του δικτυου που ειναι δεδομενοι, να τηρουνται.

Πρακτικα, αν εχει καποιος γνωσεις, μπορει να φτιαξει μεχρι και το δικο του implementation. Καποιοι το χουν κανει, και σε διαφορετικες γλωσσες απο C++ που τρεχει το core.

Παντως δεν υπαρχει ομοιομορφια στα alts στο θεμα της χρησης... δλδ υπαρχουν πολυ μεγαλα alts με σχεδον 0 χρηση και "μικρα" (οπως το steem) που κανουν χιλιαδες txs λογω του blockchain τους και των πληρωμων που γινονται σ'αυτο.

Αμα θελαμε central banking, κραταγαμε και το ευρω

Indeed, but technological resources are increased over time, thus allowing higher capabilities at same costs (over the years).

As I wrote a few posts ago, in 97, my bandwidth, cpu, storage, ram, was 1/1000th of what I now have.

My pc could probably process ...1kb blocks back then... now 1mb... in 20 years, maybe 1gb.

Satoshi never intended for the 1mb to be set indefinitely. He said, we'll raise it when needed.

Obviously you don't want to have too much, because then it hurts in decentralization and leaves the door open for spamming the blockchain.

It just needs a proper balance.

I think the choices that exist right now may not be enough to gather a good consensus (like 90%+) which may in turn create the need for a new proposal.

- BU is trash, nobody in their right mind wants it.
- Segwit will not get adopted because it increases "complexity" and it makes some miners uncomfortable (translation for: "I like the bitcoin I know, I don't want it to change, with the remote chance it introduces unknown risks")

So, given that neither will go ahead, we'll have to make some other arrangement like a 2mb upgrade in the short term, if we don't want to stick with 1mb. But this option doesn't exist right now and should be programmed and provided by core (=reputable source of code).

No clue - although I doubt it

BU has sorted this out too... A Bitcoin ...President

https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles


...you can't make this stuff up. I thought the reddit image might have been tampered or something and went to check myself.

...A president.

...A fucking president.

Οι συναλλαγες στο blockchain του dash (τελευταια 17 λεπτα):

Block      Txs
638211   4
638210   6
638209   11
638208   15
638207   9
638206   3
638205   5
638204   4

Απ'οτι φαινεται η πραγματικη χρηση ειναι ανυπαρκτη.

Το marketshare δλδ δεν αντιπροσωπευει ουτε transactions, ουτε volume transacted πανω στο δικτυο, αλλα speculation.

Για τη φουσκα των smart contracts του eth, δε νομιζω να χρειαζεται να σχολιασω. Πρακτικα δεν υπαρχει σοβαρη χρηση - ποσο μαλλον να δικαιολογει το marketcap του, εστω και ως speculation.

Το λαθος στο παραπανω σκεπτικο ειναι οτι τα cryptocurrencies ειναι ευρειας χρησης. Πρακτικα δεν ειναι, εχουν πολυ περιορισμενη χρηση, ποσο μαλλον για μικροσυναλλαγες.

Εστω οτι το bitcoin μπορει να κανει 300.000 συναλλαγες τη μερα και ενα altcoin σα το litecoin ή το dash, τα 4πλασια (1.2εκ).

Εστω το bitcoin κανει 300.000 συναλλαγες x 1000$ μεσο ορο
Εστω ενα litecoin ή dash κανει 1.200.000 συναλλαγες x 10$ μεσο ορο

....τοτε το ενα δικτυο διακινει 300εκ $ τη μερα και το αλλο 12εκ $ τη μερα - παροτι κανει 4πλασιες συναλλαγες (αριθμητικα).

Το πρωτο δικτυο αναγκαστικα ειναι πιο πολυτιμο απ'το δευτερο λογω τζιρου. Επισης φαινεται οτι το scaling εχει 2 πλευρες. Η μια πλευρα ειναι ο αριθμος συναλλαγων, η αλλη πλευρα ειναι το value transacted per tx. Το 2ο συνεχιζει να κανει scale κανονικα (με κυριο αντικτυπο τα fee υψηλης προτεραιοτητας - τα οποια για μια μεταφορα 1000$ πχ ειναι αστεια - αλλα οχι τοσο αστεια για τα 10$).

I think there is no big plan - today at least. No reasons, nothing on the horizon, etc, etc, so I think it has to be altcoin profits liquidated in the BTC market (tends to be more liquid than the alt/$ markets). The altcoin sphere picked up a couple billions, so a few big dumps in BTC could be expected.

On the other hand, one would ask for a certain equilibrium - meaning that if altcoins get pumped, then one would also expect BTC buys leveling the field... Seemingly that has not been the case, which means the pumpers already had the BTC. It's the ex-altcoin holders who went for the BTC and then the bank.

So BTC buys alts, those who picked BTC are cashing out. I don't really see anything else here.

The fork FUD is here for a few weeks and didn't affect all that much, and if anything, BU has lost even more credibility the last couple of days due to its low-quality problems (remote exploits). Generally all FUD has had a minor effect, whether it was articles claiming low prices after etf decline, PBOC actions, or fork FUD...

Probably some altcoiner who cashed out his multi-XXX% profits and didn't even care for a 10% drop in BTC

You do realize that segwit fits at least 1.7mb of txs per block, right?

20 years ago (q1 1997), I had a 486/133 (oc @160 roughly around a P90), 16MB RAM, a 4 GB HDD and a 28.8 or 33kbps modem.

In 20 years, processing power/storage/networks have seen gains of 1000x or more.

In 20 years, if we get another 1000x, we'll easily cover 5000TPS and more. I think we'll now see more than 1000x, as AI is introduced in technological research and development - and there is a lot of things that we currently perform in an unoptimized manner.

Going back to 97, if we run Bitcoin back then, it would be considered DOA - a joke that can't even do a tx/sec, and that would demand enormous CPU power, network resources for the home user, filling their HDD fast, etc etc. But now, in 2017, it's "ok" for use.

In 20 years from now it will be able to do way more than visa level txs. On-chain. And that's assuming zero progress in software solutions (which of course won't be the case).

In a way, Bitcoin cannot be judged statically, with the tech of a certain era, as Bitcoin's capabilities can multiply with technological progression. Technological progression is what ensures that Bitcoin will scale. It's not a matter of if, but when. When will people be able to run nodes that handle thousands of tx/sec, from their home connection, with their home pc or other device? Is it 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040? That's the only question...

I think the problem lies in the external vs internal game theory aspect.

The internal game theory (incentives and disincentives of players within the ecosystem of bitcoin) are theoretically ok. The problem begins with the external game theory. Meaning that actors outside bitcoin (say banks, governments / agencies) can pay bad miners more than their block reward losses for misbehaving.

So there can be a paradox where the internal game theory of disincentivizing a miner to misbehave might be adequate (the miner will behave ok for fear of not losing funds), but this will not be adequate if parties from outside the ecosystem (banks, governments / agencies) are willing to fund bad actors with multiple times the money that they would earn through honest mining.

And then you have people saying, oh if you find a block, I'll give you 2x/5x/10x this block reward, as long as you run this very "innocent" software for your mining node

The miner would easily go that route, especially if he had little to lose in terms of invested hardware in the long run. In another paradoxical way, mining centralization and heavy mining investments (which act as a disincentive to disrupt bitcoin), have delayed the corruption of short-sighted / bribed PoW mining. If mining was done by ordinary people with ordinary hardware, who wouldn't sign up for a pool that promised +XXX% payout - thus handing out majority voting to corrupt pools?

I think the invested vote (PoW + PoS hybrid), where the stakeholders in Bitcoin act as a last line of defense to corrupt mining, might be a better way to go about it - but this too can be bought out as third parties can afford to lose their stake value because from an external-game theory perspective, if it costs you, say, 10 billion USD to buy a stake in BTC and then burn it to the ground (by choosing to harm BTC with this vote), it's still more profitable than having the multi-trillion fiat or banking systems go bust due to BTC succeeding (assuming scaling is solved technologically - which is a certainty over the long run, as processors, storage, networks become better).

Protocols, not just bitcoin, don't work in the absence of consensus. One peer expects certain behavior from another peer, and if that isn't the case, the protocol doesn't work as intended. You can't have one peer saying that the block size is X, the other saying no it is Y and the block is invalid, or that the number of coins is A and another saying no it is B trying to invalidate A.

In order for protocols to work properly, practically everyone using them has to agree on what is valid and what isn't valid behavior. If a modified http or smtp server uses messages that a client doesn't understand, a page won't work or an email won't get sent. That's what's at stake here, hence the incompatibility of the various "implementations", hence the possibility of forking in at least 3 incompatible coins (the stalled chain, a BU chain, a BTC-different algo chain). If this proceeds, then any disagreement can be used by bad actors in the future to create more and more forks, until BTC becomes a joke.

The primary issue that needs to get fixed in bitcoin is not scaling. It's removing the possibility of contentious forks through "disagreements", which represent an open attack vector against bitcoin itself.

As for the price action, it reminds me of the 400 range when the prior fork FUD was ongoing and people were like "who bought at 380, price should be at 200 or lower".

Ok, where does that leave us - in practical terms. Meaning, if you had the power to implement change of some kind, in some sectors, what would that be?