With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.
Schweeet. The rest of Planet Earth will be beating down the blockchain's doors for the honour of one transaction. I can see them being given as wedding presents or instead of a dowry. Proclaim your love for her on the Blockchain. If you really love her? New grounds for divorce? "Transaction Malleability, your honour!" Not in Japan it isn't.   Well, I suppose in prison, you mate for...life. |
|
|
|
With 1MB blocks Danny Hamilton estimates fees could reach as high as $100 a transaction.
Schweeet. The rest of Planet Earth will be beating down the blockchain's doors for the honour of one transaction. I can see them being given as wedding presents or instead of a dowry. Proclaim your love for her on the Blockchain. If you really love her? New grounds for divorce? "Transaction Malleability, your honour!" |
|
|
|
meh. He is again describing segwit as a scaling solution, when that was never the intention. To rely on a latent side effect as the primary reason to implement it so quickly is simply poor engineering practice. Also, his space saving projections are optimistic. Streaming to >50 people is an engineering problem too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42bdwm/consensus_round_table_meeting_in_miami_going_on/cz962q7 (open the collapsed comment for extra lel) luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert: It won't let me without giving Google my phone number... Other guy: Is there something stopping you from registering a google voice number and then giving it to them? luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert: Dunno, sounds like a lot of steps/time that would distract me from the actual topic. TL;DR: Expert fails, but not after trying to break TOS & h4xx0r all things. Luke has always shown a consistently high threshold to technology adoption. I think richy said it best with ""Dumpster diving for 486's"  |
|
|
|
meh. He is again describing segwit as a scaling solution, when that was never the intention. To rely on a latent side effect as the primary reason to implement it so quickly is simply poor engineering practice. Also, his space saving projections are optimistic. |
|
|
|
tldr 5 million BTC did not move. Someone with 10k BTC moved it 500 times.
Seems like high volume spam. Instead of spamming the blockchain with dust, now we have XXXX btc moving back and forth, for the lolz, also creating meaningless "output" spikes. In the meantime: (cointape.com) The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 30 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 369 bytes, this results in a fee of 11,070 satoshis (=0.04$ USD for first block inclusion).And that with the mempool having a 43 mb backlog. Obviously those moving coins for the lolz to say "ohhh the blocks are full", "the mempool is full", aren't in any rush to pay - they are just clogging the system with spam as cheaply as they can get away with it. Yeah, looks like we need to increase block size limit. Indeed, I was wavering for a while ( ) but AlexGR has convinced me of the need for bigger blocks. well played, Son. |
|
|
|
From my recollection, the group threatening the "nuclear option" is not promoting core, but promoting a pure, uncluttered version of bitcoin they have been working on (available here -> http://thebitcoin.foundation ) If bitcoin hard forks, and if your preferred fork were not in the majority, a change PoW algorithm would be rational and recommended. In fact, depending on the split of hashpower, refusing to change the proof of work algorithm would be suicidal. I'm still undecided, I appreciate the value that a group like blockstream can offer in terms of innovation. I also appreciate the value of a group like The Serene Republic can offer in terms of protecting the vision of incorruptible money. I have no dog in this fight, and I haven't been following very closely lately. My position is set, my coins are old and will spend on whatever forks emerge so I'm not as immersed as I used to be. --but... if you are bullish about the long term prospect of bitcoin, but uncertain of the resolution of this bitcoin civil war, your best option might be to simply secure as many bitcoin as you can before the hard fork happens to secure your place on all subsequent forks. There are alternative forks with different visions that are looking to jump at the opportunity with this hardfork and they are already working on the code--- https://medium.com/@vcorem/lesson-learned-from-the-classic-coup-attempt-or-why-core-needs-to-prepare-a-gpu-only-pow-6a9afe18e4b0#.gpzfq1qtw Looks like there might be multiple penitential chains created . Potentially a 3 for 1 "stock" split? Very interesting. I suppose this is all possible when you have a contentious HF and a low 75% fuse. The more contentious alternatives the better. The HF only triggers at 75% - thats 75% for Classic. That means that core must now share the remaining 25% with all the other implementations. They will attack each other into oblivion. |
|
|
|
XT altcoin was much more serious bitcoin take over attempt than this joke named ClasSick.
You seem scared. Those who solely support Core are getting scared. So scared in fact that they're now discussing a change of PoW if Classic hardforks. They are discussing the nuclear option if they don't get their way. Telling. From my recollection, the group threatening the "nuclear option" is not promoting core, but promoting a pure, uncluttered version of bitcoin they have been working on (available here -> http://thebitcoin.foundation ) No need to bring in random nutters to blame for the nuclear option. Luke and Greg talked about this on reddit. Apparently the code is all ready to go. |
|
|
|
This is good. Interestingly, since there is no government forcing everyone to run any particular software, it would seem that the "free market" has already decided that a 1 MB block cap is best.
By inaction, or at least benign indifference, we signal approval? I can buy that. But the existence of Big Blockers and 3 alternative implementations surely signals a less than universal acceptance of the status quo. Of course. I'm personally mad as hell and ain't gonna take much more.  What you gonna do? stop buying? sell? contact the media? Thou shall be above only, and not beneath. Thou shall be the head, and never the tail. |
|
|
|
This is good. Interestingly, since there is no government forcing everyone to run any particular software, it would seem that the "free market" has already decided that a 1 MB block cap is best.
By inaction, or at least benign indifference, we signal approval? I can buy that. But the existence of Big Blockers and 3 alternative implementations surely signals a less than universal acceptance of the status quo. |
|
|
|
poor Austin... “I know a number of Blockstream people are frustrated by people who aren’t discussing things with them, talking to other media outlets  have you asked theymos what might be the problem? Just sayin, like. Hory Sheet.That drop.  |
|
|
|
Will I / Wont I troll the Core PR7833 Aw heck, I think I just did.  Reader Exercise: Identify the rogue PR's in COre.... PR #### Change constant 'COIN' to 1 Bong PR #### FULL RBF activation date change to Ratember TonTi  |
|
|
|
Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something? We pay people with heavy machinery to do that all without coercion and taxes. People like you pay a lot of money to vacation here as well so don't paint my community as some backwards anarchy-primitivist community where we have to build the roads with manual labor. Bah, I'm only fuckin wit ya. The way things are going I might need to head over to your utopia. Do you have any vacancies for Palm Frond wavers? Keeps ya cool a treat... |
|
|
|
sipa commented 9 hours ago I'm willing to consider this due to the unexpected controversy this is causing. I do however think this due to a misunderstanding:
•It's perfectly possible to keep accepting 0-conf transactions, if you believe they are safe for your use case. Opt-in RBF sets a non-maximum nSequence value, which causes many providers to already consider the transaction non-standard for the purpose of accepting 0-conf.
•As a customer, you can choose to set opt-in RBF, and thus lose the ability to get your payment accepted before confirmation, but with the ability to easily change the fee afterwards or combine the transaction with others.
•As a miner, the rational behaviour is to take the transaction with the highest fee (even for non opt-in cases). If you don't, another miner can.
And, no, opt-in RBF is not theft. It's indicating that you're not sure whether what you're submitting is the final form of the transaction. This is the exact semantics that nSequence had since the earliest version of Bitcoin. Yeah, cause you can surely tell that this satisfied his objection lol. It gets better... (He knows his $$ comes from the users, not the devs...) wangchun commented 8 hours ago: "@jonasschnelli Could you please tell me which wallet has been ready to warn users for potential RBF transactions? What the average user without much Bitcoin knowledge can do when he/she see this warning?" wangchun commented 8 hours ago: " So you admit nobody has yet been ready for opt-in RBF but deploy it in the next release IMHO this is no better than force a hard fork without consensus" (Bolded by my decision) Wang Chun has gone up in my estimation. He is playing the Coretards for the chumps that they are. Unbelievable. There isn't a single principle among the lot of them. where's inca's giraffe eating popcorn gif? |
|
|
|
And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is.
The ideas have been around long before the blocksize debate as a wish list -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359323.0We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off. What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101
Thank you! I did not know this website
Yes , it is controlled by the brothers Maintainer of the Bitcoin Classic so do not assume that the votes are impartial as its essentially a voting mechanism and disturbing governance model of Classic. Shouldn't you be out fixing the roads or something? |
|
|
|
Speaking to Bitcoin Magazine, F2Pool operator Wang Chun confirmed this is indeed the case.
“The rumors are true,” Chun said. “Miners in China were scared by Luke Dashjr’s proof-of-work changing pull request.”
I mean, WTF??? I mean to say... WTF?? And Wang Chun is not aware of Gregs similar posturing? Of course he is. Is everyone here a complete effing retard? This is a joke. Of course its a joke. Normal responsible business people dont speak like that OK, that was a stupid point. You are all being done up like a kipper. |
|
|
|
This is just too good not to repost... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/41vhzz/im_jesse_powell_cofounder_ceo_at_kraken_ama/cz5wznzSo, closest I came to getting hacked: My email account somehow got included in the Ashley Madison list. Seriously, no idea how that happened! I tell my girlfriend about it to preempt the rage. She says "I thought of a new BIP--Boyfriend Improvement Proposal" me: oh yeah? "yeah--it's called Segregated Penis. What do you think?" me: ... ... I better buy some more hashing power. Thats good, but this is better: If there were a sustained hard fork, we would support both coins. I think this is extremely unlikely to happen, however, as it would require > 75% of the miners to agree to it. The other 25% mining the old chain would be in a very weak state and would quickly switch rather than risk being attacked by the other guys. |
|
|
|
Where are we at, are people just pretending Toomin-Coin is still happening?
As far as I can see (read) Chinese mining pools have rejected it & shown their support for Core?
Can we add Toomin-Coin to the list of failed take overs?
Any solid links? How to beat Liverpool FC in 2 easy steps: 1. Make them concede a corner. 2. Err... thats it. I have no idea why that popped into my head. |
|
|
|
Bitfurys article strongly rejects XT principles. Not Classic. XT != Classic.
Read it again, and the underlying tone is that they prefer development to be more open.
You must have skipped to the end of the article instead of reading the whole thing. Additionally , most of us want development to be more open. Stop creating false wedge issues where none exist ... we agree on this! Lets support Libbitcoinconsensus! https://medium.com/@BitFuryGroup/keep-calm-and-bitcoin-on-4f29d581276#.lsa4ml1p6This directly refutes the Bitcoin Classic And Bitcoin Unlimited governance model. Meh, not too sure. That Medium piece was written in the context of Hearns exit piece, so yes, I still think it was largely directed at that, and not specifically at Classic. We could argue the interpretation of various pieces of that artical, but I would prefer to simply quote the man himself's view on Classic, as he posted on twitter: https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048?s=09@BitFuryGroup - the largest private miner and security provider is ready to move forward and support 2MB increase with @Bitcoin Classic That seems pretty unequivocal. edit: posted before i saw you address it earlier. But point still stands - your view that the article denegrades Classic is only your interpretation of it. And condidering his explicit support for Classic, I'd say you could redress the dichotomy by simply saying that maybe the article was about XT and Hearn. |
|
|
|
What percentage of the mining pool is represented by "Haobtc, OKCoin, Bitmain, Bither, LIGHTNINGASIC" ?
The context was Chinese mining pools. With the list above and F2Pool which already made a deal with core a couple days ago(evidence provided earlier)... I see BTCC and BW mining missing which is ~20% global hash rate or around 2/3rds of Chinese mining pools indicating they are sticking with core(If we are to believe the sources) and the remaining Chinese pools having an unknown position. F2P deal with Core? You mean 2Mb in April 2017? Do you know what they actually meant when they said that, knowing that Classic was going ahead in a timeframe a fraction of that? When I read a statement from them to that effect, I will believe it. But lets leave them nuetral for now, shall we? So what percentage of mining was represented by the list mentioned in that tweet? Are you saying that the list represents "around 2/3rds of Chinese mining pools indicating they are sticking with core"? Sorry for being dense, but I want to be clear. |
|
|
|
I've already answered that: hashpower (slight majority to strong majority)
This is in question as the miners are making political nods to both sides : Core and Classic. Indeed, but if it turns out that only 2% make a nod to Core, then that is an important detail. Additionally, this information along with Bitfury's article that strongly rejects all of classics principles lead me to doubt the sincerity of those commitments.
Bitfurys article strongly rejects XT principles. Not Classic. XT != Classic. Read it again, and the underlying tone is that they prefer development to be more open. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
