if BU died these will happen surely:
- The next campaign against Bitcoin will be immediately started! It's started already: BitcoinEC (as in emergent consensus  ) BUT I think that maybe "this time it's different" This is turning into "the boy who cried wolf", I think that even the few people who were swayed by BU or Classic etc won't buy this next coup attempt. So, I think everyone should start preparing for a whole different attack using a totally different angle. Who knows what that could be, but my suggestion would be to behave very carefully in general. Keep your eyes open, etc |
|
|
|
 segwit has more blocks then btc-u last 24 hr  Coindance is a bit of a joke, IMO Why is 1000 blocks relevant? Both Segwit and BU use 2016 block periods for their activation parameters, so the 1000 blocks sample makes zero sense |
|
|
|
With smaller blocks discovered at more frequent intervals, it would appear that there would be less wasted electricity used to generate blocks that are too late to make it onto the chain. The electricity is used but not wasted. Thank god someone can see this. If you think PoW is a waste of electricity, you do not understand what PoW does or how it achieves it. There is a difference between the two in this case because the collective result is clearly good and productive. But your comment does raise the matter of taxpayer-subsidized electricity found in places like, for example, China. is the "electricity used to generate blocks that are too late to make it onto the chain" wasted there? Ok, but it's not our "waste" to condemn. That electricity production infrastructure belongs, rightly or wrongly, to the Chinese communist state. If they want to waste public money subsidising that cost, that's between the Chinese Communist protection racket and their subjects, not really anyone else's business, unless it affects their way of life. And because PRC subsidisation of electricity (for Bitcoin mining or otherwise) does not meaningfully affect those living outside that protection racket, there's not much we can say or do, practically or morally. |
|
|
|
According to the message, a list of the participants includes:
Bitcoin.com – Roger Ver or Jake Smith
Bitfury – Val Vavilov
BitGo – Mike Belshe or Ben Davenport
Bitmain – Jihan Wu
BitPay – Stephen Pair
Blockchain – Peter Smith
Blockstream – Adam Back
Bloq – Jeff Garzik
Coinbase – Brian Armstrong
DCG – Barry Silbert
Gavin Andresen – Jeff Garzik will represent Gavin
but I hope the discussions are gonna be public and not behind the closed doors one on one talks
Sounds like a total load of bullshit to me Who the *&$@ is the Vermin to be involved? Who the *^&$% is Jeff Garzik, period? Who the ^&#$% do Brian Armstrong, Barry Silbert and Jihan Wu think they are? (they will be footnotes in history while more relevant people could remain relevant for years to come) And "Gavin" as a deserving category in it's own right?  Something's telling me that whoever organised this is either very naive, or very biased. And ditto the preference for publicly available footage of this den of weasels |
|
|
|
However, all transactions made through Bitcoin are encrypted with military-grade cryptography, ensuring that the deals are secure. So tired of this canard THERE'S NO ENCRYPTION IN BITCOIN There's cryptographic key pairs, signatures, hashes of various types and purposes, but NO ENCRYPTION *sigh* Well, I guess there will eventually be encrypted network traffic, once BIP152 is implemented, but that's something that's not even happened yet, and the ledger itself can never be encrypted, that would break the design (unless we stared using zero-knowledge proofs to overcome that, which is a whole other conversation) If the transactions written on the blockchain were encrypted data, how on earth could one verify the veracity of the public ledger? It's like these so-called journalists don't even think about what any of these things actually mean  |
|
|
|
You could've upped the blocksize 4 years ago. Yep. Could've just ordered all the miners and nodes to do it. Im not sure about 4 years ago, but it would probably not be unreasonable to believe that concensus could have been reached for 8 MB blocks two years ago. Except 2 years ago, an overwhelming consensus of Bitcoin users rejected a less modest 2MB hard fork proposal (and then they also rejected essentially the same proposal by a "different" external development team a year hence, just in case the first rejection wasn't a clear enough message) What makes you think that we would have all agreed to something 4 times the size of that? 8MB was on the table then, and no-one but a small minority of miners took that even slightly seriously |
|
|
|
|
....and adding a string intimating "Let's have BIP148, eh chaps!"
does, uh, what? Exactly?
BIP148 isn't signalled for by miners, or users. It just happens on November 15th, end of story.
So why are Bitfury trying to act like what string they add to the arbitrary data in their blocks makes 1 flea of a difference to the Bitcoin Honey Badger? They could do nothing, or write "Boooo BIP148, BOOOOO" and the effect would be the same
It's like the bit in V for Vendetta when the Chancellor says:
"I WANT EVERYBODY TO REMEMBER, WHY THEY NEED US"
|
|
|
|
As someone with a degree in Advertising and Popular Culture, and a Masters student of Psychology and Criminology, I can say that the thing that scares me the most is the idea of "Bitcoin Core" or "Bitcoin Unlimited".
In past forks, the "old coin" has gotten the name change (for example, Namecoin) while the true "Bitcoin" flourished. The new coin stayed Bitcoin, not Bitcoin 2 or Bitcoin Super.
Why is it, that with the upcoming fork, that all these name changes are being floated?
Name recognition and brand loyalty are extremely, EXTREMELY, strong factors when it comes to the success of something.
Bitcoin will survive. Bitcoin 2 will be doomed from day one. Regardless of how much better the system is or how perfected the block chain, no renamed Bitcoin will ever reach the potential that it would if it were simply kept "Bitcoin".
A) Probably not going to happen anyway now (as evidenced by the Vermin backing out of the bet with Loaded) B) You're wrong anyway, geeks don't care about the name, and geeks hold the balance of power here |
|
|
|
Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.
It's not from lack of incentive. Many of us have spent a lot of man hours with discussion, theories and code in mining that the non-mining world probably is not remotely aware of and quick to dismiss as "greedy miners." The idea behind p2pool was sound, but the reality was that the design is fundamentally flawed in a way that cannot be fixed, making it worse to mine on than a regular pool. P2pool is ultimately simply a merged mined blockchain on top of the bitcoin blockchain - mining on the merged chain means you're simply solo mining on a chain with slightly lower difficulty, yet still far too high a diff. After extensive discussion and investigation it is clear that these flaws cannot be fixed to make it even as attractive as regular pooled mining, let alone better. The design of the current bitcoin proof of work itself means that will always be the case. Without a massive change to the blockchain and proof of work design, pooled mining will always be possible, and the "p2pool" design will never be as good. A distributed peer to peer proof of work design that intrinsically does not lend itself to pooled mining without even changing from sha256d allowing existing hardware to continue mining is indeed a solution but unfortunately p2pool is not it and cannot be made to be it. Got to agree with ck on this one. p2pool, as much as I like it, struggled more and more as the barrier to entry (both difficulty and ASIC price gouging) in mining clearly delineated it's shortcomings. I see Holliday's general point too, I think a different design for a p2pool system could be far more successful, and it would be far better if proof of work redesign took that into account. I wonder if that's feasible, but we'll see. Certainly, when only difficulty and economies of scale were the barriers to entry in mining (i.e. the GPU/FPGA days), p2pool had a far higher percentage of the mining market (somewhere close to 10% at one point IIRC) |
|
|
|
Why do we need to centrally plan this and keep constraints You're not recommending anything different jonald Emergent Chaos just de facto centralises blocksize changes with the mining cartel - not decentralised Neither Bitcoin EC or Bitcoin Unlimited decentralise development, they keep it centralised (which the Classic devs admitted was the whole point just recently) - not decentralised ESPECIALLY when LN isn't even ready? Well, all I can say is, thanks for helping to stall Segwit, it's given the Lightning developers much more time to get it ready for when Segwit activates  |
|
|
|
You should also agree that he's decidely against allowing the first layer to scale freely.
He's openly stated he wants full blocks and a fee market. You're not in favour of on-chain scaling jonald, whereas the Bitcoin devs are. They've actually developed on-chain scaling ideas, some with early implementations. What have you done? You're promoting on-chain capacity increases, which don't scale at all. Your position is untenable on this issue. |
|
|
|
Good, but still not enough to scale. That literally is scaling up. Scaling has nothing to do with the magnitude of improvements. You clearly don't know what "scaling" means So we can doube-triple current tps? We will need like 100x and more. This can help, but it is not a remedy on 10x or 50x more transactions we have now.
I`m not supporting scaling by raise block size to the moon, we just need more space now. Raising block size and adapting segwit in same time give us much more space and open new possibilities that segwit give us. But it all need TIME. And we run out of it, like 6 months ago.
Nope. That's all bunk, spam attacks have been driving the transactions fees, not real economic activity. We're running below the 3-7 tx/s capacity today, and have been since the BU coup started to unwind. Maybe you could wave your hands faster? That'll work |
|
|
|
For me personally, off the chain scaling always more sense to for Bitcoin. There is much more possibilites if we do it that way. But I am not saying it is perfect. It will have its own problems. Remember that it's a tiered system; on-chain is the foundation, the 1st layer. That means we can't get off-chain 2nd layers to scale without scaling the on-chain 1st layer too. Lightning transactions need at least 1 on-chain transaction before they can be made, Lightning depends on the on-chain 1st layer. BU team's vision is on chain scaling.
So they are coding totally different things, and that is a separate aspect from the skills of the developers.
I get that and respect it. But it will never mean that the reason why the miners are following them is because they are better or their code is better. Politics and the need for control is one of the main reasons or maybe the main reason. No, jonald's confusing the issue Big blocks do not scale by definition. They increase capacity, but they don't change the scale at which more capacity is added. To scale transaction capacity meaningfully, we can only achive that by fitting more transactions into the same blocksize, "blocksize scaling" is self contradictory. |
|
|
|
I know, that scaling on chain is impossible, bus as I mention earlier - segwit goodies need time to be up and running, block size works instantly.
No it isn't Schnorr signatures confer scaling on-chain Transaction encoding improvements confer scaling on-chain Stop spreading falsehoods, these facts are readily avaliable |
|
|
|
Why not use the bigger litecoin that is a copy of bitcoin Because a PoW fork will take the real value with it - users
- the Bitcoin economy
- the Bitcoin developers (i.e. the talent)
Litecoin does not, and cannot, get those attributes so easily. Bitcoin can (as it already has them all). |
|
|
|
|
Be the change.
Open a shop at a market, or OpenBazaar, or both, to serve the people who used Bitcoin at CEX.
|
|
|
|
Whoever win or loose but first I want to know as a BTC buyer I am going to win or loose in long run.
"When there's blood in the streets, I buy" I won't be repeating the name of the person who said it, it gets said too often. |
|
|
|
|
Is money flowing directly from BTC -> Altcoins?
That doesn't make sense at all.
What's happening is that BTC -> fiat
and fiat -> altcoins
Remember that the fiat side of the trade is easiest to manipulate, central banks are charging close to zero % rates for lending to big institutions. That's near enough free money, will we hear in the future of how the 2010's saw the birth of the "cryptocurrency carry trade"? It's possible that it's begun already
|
|
|
|
"Miners are semi-trusted & serve at will of users. Users have full rights of self-defense when preponderance of miners behaving insecurely." - Nick Szabo
(a few hours ago)
PoW change, ladies & gentlemen. It's time. (it's overdue in fact) Eat, or be eaten |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
