IMHO, it could be used as a load balancing device for a system with a fixed block size limit. CoinJoins happen automatically to help compress more transactions into the available block space. This could provide a good argument against a scheme with a continuously variable block size, or to a scheme with no limit at all (although I don't think anyone has yet made any serious proposal for the latter). It also illustrates that CoinJoin really is just that, joining inputs and outputs into single transactions, regardless of the utility you're seeking from doing so.
Interesting. What is the effective 'compression' of doing several individual TX versus a single CoinJoin containing the same TXs? |
|
|
|
Collaboration between mining pools solved that one. I watched it in real time. Something tells me we will see miners collaborating towards achieving their mutual self interests again... Quiet Stolfi Of course I wasn't here then. But the article suggests it was central planning by developers that saved the day. Isn't it? Simplified: It was gavin saying roll back to the old version... miners agreed and did it. He gave them some of the faucet coins for their orphaned blocks (probably unnecessary, but generous). Wrong or you intentionally lie again to rewrite history. Gavin fucked up big time then (and has done at other times). Gavin said "the longest chain wins" which at the time was the new version 0.8 leveldb with Mike Hearn's 'bug' that would have allowed for >1MByte blocks. ( I was in IRC at the time). Luke-Jr realised how messed up that would become and coordinated quickly with mining pools (slush in particular had to be woken up) to get the pools on the 0.8 code to roll-back onto a 0.7 version or a 0.8 version that had db fixes in it. Interestingly that incident whereby a highly suspicious block exploited an obscure unknown behaviour in Berkeley DB to sneak in a 'bad' block (it had many transactions that triggered the database lock limit but not the blocksize limit) which Mike Hearn wrote the code for, Gavin committed to the repo would have set a precedent for developers forking off the miners over a blocksize technicality. Sound familiar? ... these guys have been at this for years. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Maybe, those issues are behind Ethereum, but several aspects of ethereum seem to have its own issues in regards to pump and dump sense and various small community centralization like dynamics.
You mean like a single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity... directly and negatively affecting its competitiveness against growing alternatives? Perhaps you should stop insulting your betters like you did to mmitech earlier and start thinking about these issues. This is the text NLC omitted without explanation There is no "single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity" that is a blatant lie.
If lies are all you have left to try and scare some plebes into supporting a coup to a centralised development model then you are delusional and lying to yourself also. Bitcoin Core development has many different parties contributing code, review, analysis, testing and research (NB: decentralised already)... AND they all agree to the way forward. Bigger blocks will come when they are needed, when we have widespread functioning fee selection and replacement s/ware in wallets (in case it is needed and for future-proofing), and the low-risk beneficial algorithmic capacity increases have been implemented .... just not tonight dear (as someone said). |
|
|
|
-snip-
Maybe, those issues are behind Ethereum, but several aspects of ethereum seem to have its own issues in regards to pump and dump sense and various small community centralization like dynamics.
You mean like a single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity... directly and negatively affecting its competitiveness against growing alternatives? Perhaps you should stop insulting your betters like you did to mmitech earlier and start thinking about these issues. .... just not tonight dear ( as someone said). This is the text blindmayorbitcoin omitted without explanation There is no "single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity" that is a blatant lie.
If lies are all you have left to try and scare some plebes into supporting a coup to a centralised development model then you are delusional and lying to yourself also. Bitcoin Core development has many different parties contributing code, review, analysis, testing and research (NB: decentralised already)... AND they all agree to the way forward. Bigger blocks will come when they are needed, when we have widespread functioning fee selection and replacement s/ware in wallets (in case it is needed and for future-proofing), and the low-risk beneficial algorithmic capacity increases have been implemented .... just not tonight dear (as someone said). |
|
|
|
-snip-
Maybe, those issues are behind Ethereum, but several aspects of ethereum seem to have its own issues in regards to pump and dump sense and various small community centralization like dynamics.
You mean like a single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity... directly and negatively affecting its competitiveness against growing alternatives? Perhaps you should stop insulting your betters like you did to mmitech earlier and start thinking about these issues. Stop lying and spreading lies. People like you have totally poisoned the debate to take it out of the realm of technical into the personal attacks, smears and political, which of course was your disgusting intention all along. This the text fatman omitted without explanation. There is no "single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity" that is a blatant lie.
If lies are all you have left to try and scare some plebes into supporting a coup to a centralised development model then you are delusional and lying to yourself also. Bitcoin Core development has many different parties contributing code, review, analysis, testing and research (NB: decentralised already)... AND they all agree to the way forward. Bigger blocks will come when they are needed, when we have widespread functioning fee selection and replacement s/ware in wallets (in case it is needed and for future-proofing), and the low-risk beneficial algorithmic capacity increases have been implemented .... just not tonight dear (as someone said). |
|
|
|
-snip-
Maybe, those issues are behind Ethereum, but several aspects of ethereum seem to have its own issues in regards to pump and dump sense and various small community centralization like dynamics.
You mean like a single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity... directly and negatively affecting its competitiveness against growing alternatives? Perhaps you should stop insulting your betters like you did to mmitech earlier and start thinking about these issues. Stop lying and spreading lies. People like you have totally poisoned the debate to take it out of the realm of technical into the personal attacks, smears and political, which of course was your disgusting intention all along. There is no "single company stonewalling a simple upgrade to tx capacity" that is a blatant lie. If lies are all you have left to try and scare some plebes into supporting a coup to a centralised development model then you are delusional and lying to yourself also. Bitcoin Core development has many different parties contributing code, review, analysis, testing and research (NB: decentralised already)... AND they all agree to the way forward. Bigger blocks will come when they are needed, when we have widespread functioning fee selection and replacement s/ware in wallets (in case it is needed and for future-proofing), and the low-risk beneficial algorithmic capacity increases have been implemented .... just not tonight dear (as someone said). |
|
|
|
Yes centralization has been a working governance model for open source projects
but Bitcoin is a different animal. Consensus on protocol rules
is needed. In other open source projects, if people wanted to run their own
version they could do so largely without affecting others. Given this
requirement of everyone having to have the same rules, new challenges
in governance emerge.
No, adding competing versions of the consensus rules devalues the network/currency, due to the uncertainty about how the currency might change in the future. Why do you keep pushing a destructive idea, simultaneously selling it not as destructive, but as a solution? ... cause "governance reasons" |
|
|
|
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. These are logical options to consider if the mining power cartelises and becomes hostile to the financial majority. It is laudable that they discuss these options in public and not in backroom deals with faceless Blockchain Alliance power brokers. |
|
|
|
|
Satoshi gets the final say on any contentious hard fork, neither fork could survive the satoshi deluge ... and he only needs to move a few well-known coins to make intentions clear without the full 1million BTC dump. If you don't know his intentions then you are working inside a drastic information asymmetry. It would be good if all the pretenders, imposters, usurpers and sundry scumbags ended up on the wrong side before being washed away in the salutary flood.
|
|
|
|
-snip-
(digital influencer) budget ran dry
-snip-
Related?  no, so stupidly wrong and venal it is hard to imagine ... Blockstream have been advertising for Dev evangelist for ~12 months |
|
|
|
Didn't Satoshi consider the possibility that a hard fork could be contentious? Why isn't this a real concern?
Its supposed to protect the network, the problem is most people cant see who is creating the so called "controversy" and the "toxic environment" hint, its not the people wanting to scale bitcoin by allowing more people to interact with the blockchain directly. Oh rly? You and that shilling scammer cypherdoc have been in full-blown toxic PR mode since Gavin and Hearn started pulling your heart strings and stroking your sad egos' lust for relevance ... finally an issue dirt-dumb enough to get some leverage over the evil devs. |
|
|
|
Holy Crap!
Lambie is a Hobbesian!!!
Edit: Well, and a Kantian, come to think of it.
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. – In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. |
|
|
|
Core is full of shit. There is absolutely no issue with raising the block size. How about by 10%, nope, they won't raise it at all.....
Core is forcing bitcoin to be something different than what 99% of the community expected it to be... they want the blockchain to be the backbone. A reasonable position, however, Core had this agenda long ago and only now it has become completely obvious. Unfortunately, most of the community wasn't along for the Core ride... now we want off this ship.
Core has stated many times that everyone wants to raise the max_block_size, that is not contentious. It is how and when that it is done that is being debated in a civilised and calculated manner. My personal preference is leaning towards a linear scaling growth factor that decreases at each halving. Such that max_block_size inflation tapers off at roughly the same rate as coin issuance to ensure fees take over the blockchain security incentive smoothly as rewards decrease. |
|
|
|
To be honest I think Roger Ver agrees with Classic so when he is asked in interviews why he agrees with classic he can subtlety drop an advertisement about his website. "By the way Classic is censored in the official reddit thats why we created Bitcoin.com..." it's not that subtle actually.
Yes the censorship sucks, and they will use that against us to gain credibility. I think censorship should not be done even if we are right, it is just a bad thing to do. it was in no way censorship, you've bought into the double-speak of the sock-puppets and shills who were over-running the legitimate bitcoin forums before better moderation showed up (notice how they still jealously covet getting a voice on these "hated censored forums") ... it was totally out of control, there was no debate before, just a loud cacophony of propaganda ... once they go to their "own" forums they had nothing to say and just started tearing strips off each other. |
|
|
|
-snip-
It is the long term economic model of a blockchain secured by fees that the ecosystem needs to observe and learn about, sooner rather later.
Yup, and I can't imagine a better time to do it than with 25 BTC reward blocks. ... not so much the rewards regime but such that it is before businesses get entrenched with feeless business models ... who would be screaming and shilling at much higher noise level than you witness today. Sorry to say but it seems quite a lot of VCs have blown investments building on a prototype protocol not the production version, which has always been in the planning and on the drawing board so it is their own failure. |
|
|
|
It's the FULLBLOCALYPSETMHere's what going to happen. Fees will go up. A little. A tremendous amount of stupid spam and crap transactions will be forced off the chain. People who actually have a reason to use it will pay a bit more. Over time, improvements will be made in capacity and throughput, allowing for further growth. The sky will stay up there. You can put the umbrella down now. The sky may stay there, but it will become toxic with all the alternate blockchains sucking out all the oxygen value. Eventually yes, that would happen. Not right away because there is a lot of headroom of spam, crap, and low-value uses that will be forced off, ensuring that capacity is available, allowing ample time for improvements in capacity and throughput. Most importantly new business models that provide profitable long term solutions to capacity will then become obvious and get built out in the confidence that they wont be undermined by capricious and arbitrary consensus code changes. It is the long term economic model of a blockchain secured by fees that the ecosystem needs to observe and learn about, sooner rather later. |
|
|
|
It's the FULLBLOCALYPSETMI think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now. (I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.) big blocker capitulation is close ... they have no logical ground to stand on and the whole edifice is crumbling, Crassic was just the Hearn echo swansong You don't seem to understand. Bigblockers will win if we crash the price far enough to persuade the miners to switch. If we fail in that, it's because the price is going up and they have no reason to listen to us. (if it ain't broke, don't fix it). So it's simple. Just keep pumping until we go away. That's how you'll get us to capitulate. that's some crassic thinking right there |
|
|
|
It's the FULLBLOCALYPSETMI think I'm done arguing. It just has to play out now. (I was actually going to use that word but couldn't remember it exactly.) big blocker capitulation is close ... they have no logical ground to stand on and the whole edifice is crumbling, Crassic was just the Hearn echo swansong |
|
|
|
|
matthecat and morecoin freeman both bitcoin#rekt in the same day, couldn't get much better ... sup guys, not HODL those coinz?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
