the test-net for SegWit is pretty thorough as it is. It's not logical to object to it on the basis of never having been tried before; every change big and small to Bitcoin has arguably never been tried, including the supposedly simple blocksize increase approach. With blocksize increases, wallet users and miners bear the costs of the upgrade equally. With node numbers already dwindling, and mining centralising further, the incentive for the new blocksize to saturate quickly is too high under this attempt to scale up. Increased resources to run Core will push more wallet users away from running a full-node. A negative feedback loop. With Segwit, the resource pressure is largely taken off wallet users, with the miners bearing most of the costs of the increases (and relay nodes doing so as they choose). Wallet holders using Bitcoin Core can enjoy similar levels of resource usage to before, encouraging adoption in that segment. Adoption that will be useful to the miners, who will have up to x4 the space for new transactions from these new users. A positive feedback loop. And remember, x4 the space is multiplied by whatever the base blocksize is. The 4MB is based on 1MB as a base blocksize, but 2MB base would yield 8MB. So, you could argue that big blocks is additive, whereas SegWit is multiplicative  Yes, the timid "never been tried before" objection is pure hand-waving FUD, especially in light of the ongoing testing. But perhaps segwit should be used in production (not testnet) by altcoin before getting merged into Bitcoin. Viacoin successfully served as the testbed for CLTV, so why not do a wet run over there? Blockstream has plenty of money for paying Peter Todd to do it, and he's familiar with VIA.... |
|
|
|
Paul the Younger had an oustanding debate last night.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIa1LTo-qYEIs Rand back in the top tier? His performance set Twitter's heat aflutter; social media says he won the debate. Cite: https://storify.com/Team_Rand/read-some-of-the-best-rand-paul-tweetsPaul the Elder will speak at U. of Iowa the night before the caucuses. Will America's Last Founding Father be able to mitigate Trump's Idiocracy voters? Don't forget to donate BTC/USD/TLC, because there's only one anti-authoritarian fiscal conservative running this year! http://time.com/4199443/republican-debate-rand-paul-spotlight/
Back on the main stage, the Kentucky senator made his presence felt
After being bumped from the main debates in early January due to low polling numbers, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took full advantage of his primetime slot at Thursday night’s Republican debate.
....
Despite his less than spectacular standing in the polls, Paul signaled Thursday he’s not ready to give up the fight. But in the end, he used his final pitch to the public to explain to voters his personal views on entering the race, rather than taking an opportunity to appeal to voters in Iowa. While other candidates brought up Sept. 11, blasted Hillary Clinton, and the Bible, Paul stuck to what he knows.
“I’ve gotten to do some incredible things. Got to be on the floor of the Senate. And it has been amazing to me,” Paul said. “But the thing that is most important to me and caused me to run for office is I’m worried about the country and how much debt we’re adding.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/28/winners-and-losers-from-the-7th-republican-presidential-debate/
Winners
* Rand Paul: Maybe the Kentucky Senator just needed to take a debate off. After not making the main stage in the 6th debate (and refusing to appear in the undercard debate), Paul was a major player in this one. He showed off his trademark willingness to needle the other candidates -- he went after Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz at various points -- but also offered nuanced thoughts on racial profiling and abortion. This was the Paul who many political observers -- myself included -- thought we might see in this campaign: A candidate willing and able to speak to issues his party has struggled to address in recent years. |
|
|
|
Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. Some felt frustrated that core devs had been ignoring their demand, and this sense of frustration contributed to the conspiracy theory, which was explicitly expressed there: The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.
Some expressed the view that while SigWit has its potential, it is something never been tried before, therefore should be given more time for thorougher test; worse, some felt that it represents a development that has deviated from Satoshi's vision and eventually, led to increased complexity of the protocol to such degree that it would be forbidding to most startups.
Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.
Let me know what you think as always.
The 2nd half of the Scaling Bitcoin conference was China, where many photos were taken of the world's biggest miners sharing a stage. So I don't see how Chinese Bitcoiners have "little say in the matter" of scaling. "Chinese Bitcoin" was originally one of Mike Hearn's bad ideas, because Chinese miners didn't want the 20MB blocks Gavin proposed. Consequently, Chinese Bitcoiners once again had plenty of say in the matter of rejecting XT (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/major-mining-pools-make-stand-bitcoin-xt-fork-support-bip-100-grows-1440537258 for details). "Chinese Bitcoin" would be as unsuccessful as any other Hearn-spawned XT-style contentious hard fork, while the resulting drama almost certainly crashes the price (again). Miners (whether Chinese or not) are not the boss of the Bitcoin system. They are highly-paid, highly-specialized security guards, not Bitcoin's executives. This concept is explained here: http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/19/bitcoin-and-voting-power/This is a tremendously empowering situation. A 51% miner does not have 51% of the vote; in fact, GHash has just as much say over the contents of the blockchain as do I, or you, or anyone else. Miners derive their income from the buyers and sellers who recognize the blocks they create. This is why the behavior of a misbehaving miner is proscribed -- they could not, for instance, create 10 million Bitcoins out of the thin air, because no one would recognize those new rules. The blockchain is what we all say it is. This is why regular users wield ultimate power in Bitcoin. It is the chain power that determines the shape of the blockchain, not mining power. Miners are followers, not leaders, in this game. Thus, miners should not make rude "demands" of Honey Badger, because if they push them too far the socioeconomic majority can change the PoW or otherwise veto them. Segwit, now being carefully tested, is needed to fix several outstanding issues and prepare Bitcoin to truly scale (~orthogonally to max_block_size). Segwit will probably be done as a soft fork, so there is no way to stop other people from using it. Please explain the perceived benefit of 2MB over 1MB blocks at this time. Why are they, right now, superior in a cost vs. benefit analysis? The only benefit AFAIK is that Bitcoin's tiny ~5tps is increased by an equally tiny ~5tps. And that's assuming we don't get more empty blocks because of longer propagation/validation latency. It's important to get Segwit right, and study its effects on the experiment, before we go about changing an important control variable like max block size. Please consider the possibility any "frustration" being felt is due to individuals' lack of patience rather than Core/Blockstream lethargy, intransigence, or conspiracies. We are all eager to see Bitcoin grow up ASAP, but must delay our urge for gratification with perspicacious self-discipline as we wait for the properly auspicious time for an eventual modification of the 1MB block size limit. |
|
|
|
Kelly should not be allowed to moderate the next GOP debate, Clearly she has a chip on her shoulder when it comes to Trump. It was evident when she singled him out and aggressively attacked him during the last debate. Truthfully, it turned me off. I no longer watch her show, nor will I in the future. There were far more important questions to ask.
As the leader in the polls by a wide margin, Trump is going to get singled out in debates and his abrasive spoiled rich kid personality is fair game for discussion. That's a good thing for him, because he gets more time to talk. Unless he's afraid of being held accountable, I cannot fathom any reason for missing an opportunity to spend the evening chatting with Megyn Kelly.  THINGS DONALD TRUMP IS AFRAID OF:
1. BALD EAGLES
2. MEGYN KELLY
3. DRAFT NOTICES
4. ACCOUNTABILITY |
|
|
|
Strong sell today:
POLONIEX 1D XMRBTC HL 3%x3
[img]https://i.imgur.com/oJ1PYXR.png Thx for the chart. This correction to a 50% retracement seems perfectly normal after the big jump up from the 0.0010s. Alt market is exhausted from the past two days. Never seen a mass pumping like that before. Cryptsy/Bitlocker coins being cleaned across chains is my guess. XT Part Deux, Gavin's latest attack fork, can't be helping either. |
|
|
|
Daaamn, did ya'll see Miss Megyn smoldering through the debate last night?  http://mashable.com/2016/01/28/megyn-kelly-gop-debate-winnerOn a stage with several experienced candidates debating their way into the favor of the public, the winner was....Megyn Kelly.
Kelly, the Fox News anchor and lightning rod for Donald Trump's hate, came into Thursday night's debate under plenty of pressure. Not that you could have sensed it.
Debuting a sleek, powerful new look, Kelly's moderation of the Republican presidential debate on Fox News drew widespread accolades, particularly for hard-hitting questions directed at candidates' positions. Rand Paul was on fire, but MK nearly burned a hole in my screen! |
|
|
|
There are entire, fully funded projects solely working on distributed storage. Then there are entire, fully funded projects working on social networking type applications. Then there are entire, fully funded projects working on API building.
Given that background, any self respecting investor is going to conclude that Dash has bitten off more than it can chew trying to do all this to a high technical standard with only 1 or 2 core developers. They will wonder where the efficiency gain is in development (i.e. what is it that those projects are doing that Dash doesn't need to do).
I think the distinction needs to be fleshed out more to support confidence in that area.
Thanks for understanding at least half of my point. The other half is that D-ash still has outstanding issues (EG concrete-drying slow mixing, no SendMany, no masternode blinding, no grandpa-friendly family wallet, etc) that need fixing before Evan wanders off on some random hopeless quest to catch up to "fully funded projects solely working on distributed storage...social networking type applications...[and]...API building." |
|
|
|
So essentially you are selling fee-based private sidechains with customer support ?
And limiting main Bitcoin chain in order to force customers onto your sidechains ?
Wasn't Blockstream supposed to have no conflict of interest with Bitcoin ?
Man, you BS guys all are so full of shit. This will not go unnoticed.
Go back whining on reddit, or vote on consider.it. Bitcoin's sound money and security attributes comes first. Gmax explanation is thoughtful, Core devs does not have the power, nor the will, to force contentious hardfork and break bitcoin's consensus rule.That is all, there is nothing you or anyone can do about it. Sorry your head got brainwashed by the full of shit socialist mainstreameries. Bitcoin's Nakamoto Consensus interprets contention as damage and routes around it. |
|
|
|
Dont know why nobody is pointing these issues, or maybe they dont see that is essential for usage.
On another hand DASHe is on long run and normally these issues will be solved, but we need to have as close as we can before DASHe is finally released...
I want to point few major issues why we are still not in production:
1. there is not a way to sendmanyIX
2. there is not a way to mix coins trough dash-cli
3. there should be a better way to get notification if transaction came trough IX or normal.
I know devs are busy but I think these issues could be fast resolved.
4. Pre-mixing D-ash may take anywhere from hours to days, creating a terrible user experience, especially compared to the ~instant privacy of some competing coins. These 4 major issues need to be addressed before Evan leaves on some quixotic quest to build his own BURST/SIA/STORJ/MAIDSAFE distributed file system (with soda and hookers). |
|
|
|
Just some spit-balling here, I'm sure I have some ordering and details wrong.
Mike and Gavin argue for no limits and ~free transactions forever, regardless of the costs.
Some in core suggest that if we really need to show the flexibility of a blocksize increase, 2MB could probably be sold and made safe enough (with planned future improvements) if we really had to.
Gavin gets some clue and realizes no limit at all makes no sense; Mike grudgingly agrees to go along with a 20MB proposal.
Miners reject that as unrealistically large.
Gavin and Mike retrench with a 8MB that rapidly ramps to gigabytes. Announce intent to adversarial fork the network in Bitcoin XT. A new client which is 99.99% code from Core but with the addition of the new expanded blocksize and Mike hearn declared benevolent dictator of the project.
In spite of announced intentions by some, almost no one adopts Bitcoin XT and XT development sits at a near standstill compared to Core.
Miners' notice the 8MB change isn't really 8MB and some aren't pleased.
Systems testing is finally performed on XT via testnet a month before it was intended to activate. Many performance problems are found with 8MB, person testing it suggests that 4MB or 3MB initially may be more realistic.
Core completes a years long development work which speeds signature validation >5x, invents a clean way to allow new efficiencies and security trade-offs, gets node pruning working, and comes up with a way to get roughly 2MB worth of capacity without a the risky and coordination problematic hardfork, while simultaneously fixing some long time bugs like malleability and misaligned incentives (utxo bloat).
Core posts a capacity roadmap including these solutions, along with a plan for further development to allow more capacity into the future.
Almost the entire development community and many in industry sign on an open letter in support of this plan. On the order of fifty people in all, it includes all of the most active contributors to Bitcoin Core and many other pieces of Bitcoin software.
Gavin, Jeff, and a few other people (including people involved with the recently insolvent Crypsy exchange) announce that they're creating "Bitcoin Classic"; a retry of the XT approach but with added popular voting on a centralized web voting site.
Mike Hearn catches fire, slams Bitcoin with a one-sided attack piece piece in the NYT calling Bitcoin a failure. Some argue that Mike's position is driven by his employment at R3, an adversarial to Bitcoin company working with major banks. Astute followers know this isn't true: Mike's misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.
Bitcoin market price crashes significantly.
Core creates a public test network for the new improvements and many people are actively testing on it. Several wallets begin their integration process for the new improvements. Development moves rapidly, several standards documents are written.
Market price substantially recovers.
Gavin finally announces code for the new "Classic", largely duplicating the XT functionality. Instead of the BIP101 rapid growth scheme, it features a 2MB hardfork, and none of the other improvements that are recently in core and in the works.
Bitcoin market price drops significantly again.
I'm hoping we get to the point where the market realizes it's being toyed with here and repeated XT reloaded attempts are pretty meaningless. We're not seemingly there yet.
Have I basically summarized the last year? Anyone want to add any bullets?
Great summary, very accurate. For completeness, don't forget the first XT-induced price crash, and the wonderful #ScalingBitcoin workshops that Hearn declined to attend. Perhaps consider the role of the (shady cloud-mining) Toomir Bros and (shady Panopticoin pushers) The Blockchain Alliance, although they are really just footnotes. 3 cheers for BIP000; long live Bitcoin Core! |
|
|
|
blockstream=pricewater house coopers
classic= scammers (marshal long) corporate backing
xt=banks
can we please have a team of developers thats not got a hidden agenda
Can we please just look at what the code does, change it or write our own if we don't like it, and stop speculating about motivations and hidden agendas? Anwser: No, no, and Hell No. Welcome to Bitcointalk! |
|
|
|
The war is never over. We know your governance attacks will only increase in frequency and severity as Bitcoin threatens to disrupt corrupt, dishonest, opaque TBTF institutions. We realize the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and are preparing accordingly. Good luck with your low-information Reddit mob of impatient malcontents and obituary writing Buttcoiners. |
|
|
|
the speculations that bitcoin is about to fork as a result, and the dire consequences that ensue, are largely exaggerated.
so what, the big picture looks gr8, segwit is a huge improvement, MUCH better solution then simply upping the limit.
and to me the fact that "the community has been tearing itself to pieces like a mental patient on bath salts." is just fucking bullish...
yep, and I know who my money is on in this game ... it will be the cypherpunks and cryptogeeks who built this thing and truly understand its subtle nuances and well-balanced incentive structures rather the CoinBase brian armstrong's R3 Hearn's and sundry govt toady boot-licker johnny-come-latelys who want a new PayPal for Big Bruh data-harvesting and black-listing.
the cypherpunks have more tricks up their sleeves in regards to hard forking POW, sybill attacks than you have half heard about ... if these wiener VCs and guvcorpro-bully boyz want a fork intrigue over this they better show up well prepared ... it's not about the money, it's about sending a message, choose your team wisely.Epic Rant detected!  Right there with you Sir. Been hitting the Bordeaux tonight?  BTW what's your avatar img mean? |
|
|
|
Move Core just to 2MB and you will have killed Classic Bitcoin.
^FTFY It is an engineering requirement that Honey Badger be completely unresponsive and utterly immune to political pressure. Given any precedent set to the contrary, Satoshi's great experiment is finished. But don't take my word for it. Try this on for size... https://medium.com/@PanteraCapital/the-governance-of-anarchists-blockchain-letter-january-2016-798842f468de?source=latest---------1
Bitcoin Classic: in theory, implementing an immediate 2MB change would immediately alleviate block congestion but would require a hard fork. Hard forking carries with it certain systemic risks:
Bitcoins received from before the fork can be spent twice, once on both sides of the fork. This creates a high double-spend risk.
Bitcoins received after the fork are only guaranteed to be spendable on the side of the fork they were received on. This means some
users will have to lose money to restore Bitcoin to a single chain.
In essence, if a hard fork goes bad, it will likely cause large-scale confusion and make Bitcoin incredibly difficult to use until the situation is resolved. There’s also a very real chance of total system failure if a hard fork’s deployment is not well-coordinated across the entire network.
Dan Morehead
Chief Executive Officer
@Dan_Pantera
|
|
|
|
Who the hell takes this bimbo that acts like whore, seriously anyway?
Donald for one obviously takes Megyn Kelly seriously. He ran away like a coward when faced with the prospect of being confronted by her in public, where she was certain to cut him a new Trumphole. What presidential material! (And by that I of course mean MK.)  Please Miss Megan, don't hurt Donald too bad! He's just a poor little rich boy and doesn't know any better.  |
|
|
|
snotty_misleading_meme.gif
Megyn Kelly didn't complain about Donald "objectifying women." Do you even understand what "objectifying" means in that context? You are confusing misogyny ("bleeding out of her...whatever") with objectification. Totally different things. Good luck with your 'dipshits for Trump' campaign. You can't even get the story straight. Better take some journalism lessons from Miss Megyn. This is what she said (note the absence of complaints about "objectifying women"). http://www.thewrap.com/megyn-kelly-to-donald-trump-i-will-not-apologize-either/“I’ll continue doing my job without fear or favor,” Fox News host says Megyn Kelly fired back at Donald Trump who refuses to apologize for criticism he levied against the Fox News host after last Thursday’s GOP presidential debate. “Trump, who is the frontrunner, will not apologize, and I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism. So I’ll continue doing my job without fear or favor,” Kelly said on Monday’s episode of “The Kelly File.” “And Mr. Trump, I suspect, will continue with what has been a successful campaign thus far,” the host continued. “This is a tough business, and it’s time now to move forward.” She called Trump an “interesting man who has captured the attention of the electorate — that’s why he’s leading in the polls.” Kelly’s comments come after Trump claimed he was unfairly treated by her during the debate when asked to defend previous comments about women being “fat pigs, dogs and disgusting animals.” |
|
|
|
Adam Back is telling a string of lies on Twitter as I type. Not sure which side has the most liars, Classic or Core? https://twitter.com/adam3usIn each one of these cases of problematic devs, all you have to do is follow the money. Blockstream must exit core in order for bitcoin to survive. Name just a single lie Dr. Back has told. It should be easy to pick one, if he's "telling a string" of them. Oh, that's right. You're obviously very butthurt that @Dan_Pantera, the 500lb gorilla of BTC VCs, has come down squarely on the side of Team Core. You're so fucking R3KT all the evidence-free hand-waving counter-accusations in the world won't change that hard fact. https://medium.com/@PanteraCapital/the-governance-of-anarchists-blockchain-letter-january-2016-798842f468de?source=latest---------1
Bitcoin Classic: in theory, implementing an immediate 2MB change would immediately alleviate block congestion but would require a hard fork. Hard forking carries with it certain systemic risks:
Bitcoins received from before the fork can be spent twice, once on both sides of the fork. This creates a high double-spend risk.
Bitcoins received after the fork are only guaranteed to be spendable on the side of the fork they were received on. This means some
users will have to lose money to restore Bitcoin to a single chain.
In essence, if a hard fork goes bad, it will likely cause large-scale confusion and make Bitcoin incredibly difficult to use until the situation is resolved. There’s also a very real chance of total system failure if a hard fork’s deployment is not well-coordinated across the entire network.
Dan Morehead
Chief Executive Officer
@Dan_Pantera
|
|
|
|
I still can't believe some people are supporting these guys with the risk to lose actual talented people like Greg Maxwell and Peter just for the stupid idea of a hard fork to have the blocksize doubled when we don't even necessarily need it now, this feels like a bad dream and I hope it's over soon and Core devs can continue working in a more relaxed environment but I guess it will only keep getting worse so we need to stay alert and remain strong.
You need to grow a thicker hide and accept these populist/demagogic attacks on Bitcoin governance will never end. Then prepare to keep fighting the entropy, forever.  |
|
|
|
How nice of the Gavinista remnant to ride to the aid of the floundering Toominista insurgency. The blocksize may be increased eventually, but... Sorry.
Not.
Tonight.
Dear. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
