Indeed, it was a sad day for the family. But he is in a better place now:  |
|
|
|
Update - yes, we're back again!:
Woo-hoo! |
|
|
|
opposing forks like a Chinese restuarant
...until one day there was a solar flare... |
|
|
|
Hey -- that's my cousin from Boulder -- Falling Bear. |
|
|
|
Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first.
Yea well maybe if that had been the rhetoric of the big blockers at the time there wouldn't have developed this schism. If they had said, look we need to increase the block size enough to get us over this hump until we can roll out some more practical second layer solutions and pressed for that I bet they could have gotten our capitulation. That was the rhetoric. Since about 2014. Well before the fork. Instead Ver comes out ranting and raving about how he is the one true emissary of Satoshis will and that Satoshi wanted huge blocks, big enough that everyone and their grandma can fit how ever many trivial transactions as they wish in there and that that WAS the solution to scaling, not a temporary stop gap measure.
Ver? Ver wasn't involved in Bitcoin Cash until well after the fork. At least as far as I have seen. Have you forgotten Bitcoin Unlimited? Bitcoin XT? etc? Your argument sounds reasonable enough but they are not the arguments I am familiar with from the bcash community. I think perhaps you may be projecting rather than accurately describing the general consensus in the community. Unless you are trying to run defense for them by presenting them in a more rational light.
Defense for whom? This silly conflating of Ver, Wu, and Wright as 'the BCH community' is a complete mischaracterization. Yes, they talk about BCH. As do a host of others. But the only ones that seem to be quoted by those that hate BCH are these three. Well, maybe Mcafee too. Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there.
They did that because their hand was forced by you guys. No one wanted to roll that out as early as they did in that state. They were trying to save bitcoin from Ver's hair brained machinations. No. That was the segwit plan from the start of when core started seriously discussing its implementation. Long before serious talk of Bitcoin Cash. Which was itself a defensive move to save Bitcoin from the cancer that is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. |
|
|
|
For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.
The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s
The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.
Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.
There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.
I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal. But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former. Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first. Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there. Sure, Lightning allows high frequency txs between a limited set of participants, but it really doesn't do much for increasing the number of participants themselves. You can still only open or close about 5 channels per sec. How long will it take if everyone in the world wanted to open _one_ channel? Three decades. But we've been over all these points - and more. I will continue to believe that Bitcoin Cash has the right way forward for Bitcoin. Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But when others cast aspersions, I will reply to the slander. |
|
|
|
So really all I know is that they intended to "scale" by increasing the blocksize. ... Has anything changed? Are they proposing realistic alternatives to lightning for scaling? Are there new developments that I should be aware of?
For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage. The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that: - generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s - above ~100 tx/s there is still plenty of CPU BW - a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance - bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling. Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x. There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is the only coin who solved the The Byzantine Generals Problem.
And by carrying on the design of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash has inherited this characteristic. PS: only? Evidence would suggest otherwise. |
|
|
|
Jbreher lost a lot of my respect when he tried to sell the idea that bCash was as decentralized as Bitcoin because the potential set of bCash miners was the same as the potential set of Bitcoin miners.
On that mining share basis, one could easily make the argument that BTC is more centralized than BCH. 45.4% of BCH is mined by the same pools that mine 61.9% of BTC. Bitcoin.com is a pool based in North America that mines roughly 15% of BCH blocks. 3% of BTCViaBTC is a pool based in China that mines roughly 10% of BCH blocks. 5% of BTCAntPool is a pool based in China that mines roughly 9% of BCH blocks. 25.2% of BTCBTC.top is a pool based in China that mines roughly 7% of BCH blocks. 11.2% of BTCBTC is a pool based in China that mines 3.9% of BCH blocks. 10.2% of BTCBTCC is a pool based in China that mines 0.5% of BCH blocks. 7.3% of BTChttps://blog.sfox.com/the-bitcoin-cash-people-platforms-wallets-and-miners-you-need-to-know-afa53aaa3c66https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/pools/ |
|
|
|
I ain't looking for sympathy (like I need it .... seen today's price action?). What I am looking for is some basic civility. Some assholes think it appropriate to turn every conversation I have into some sort of referendum on BCH. With unfounded/unsupported accusations to boot. And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous. Show me someone who has had a loss due to 'Bitcoin' being in the name of Bitcoin Cash, and I'll show you someone who is cavalierly negligent, willfully ignorant, or both. |
|
|
|
You are absolutely full of shit, Torque. The only BCH I got pre-fork is in equal quantity to my BTC holdings, due to the impending fork.
And that's my point. Unlike those hapless brainwashed BCash cultists that actually have to buy BCash directly post-fork (i.e., now and forever forward in time), you haven't bought any directly with hard-earned fiat. You acquired all of yours for "free". So you really don't have any skin in the game. SO, in your estimation, you would value the BTC that I traded for BCH as somehow less than some equivalent amount of fiat traded for BCH? You value fiat higher than Bitcoin? Understood. Explains a lot, really. |
|
|
|
he is the most polite one
In a slide the dagger between your ribs sort of way. Perhaps you explain how you figure my actions are in any way similar to personal intimate lethal violence? No. Inability to support your outrageous characterization duly noted. yet I don't go around shilling them.
Mommy! Mommy! What Yogi is saying is huuuuurting me! Make him stop! Yogi is just a piece of shit.
Hey - Ibian - go fuck yourself. And I mean that in the most loving, caring way  |
|
|
|
The only reason you're smug and patting yourself on the back about BCash is that you got in pre-fork and thus didn't have to shell out a dime for it.
You are absolutely full of shit, Torque. The only BCH I got pre-fork is in equal quantity to my BTC holdings, due to the impending fork. Exactly the same way and in the same proportion that you did. I did convert quite a bit of my BTC to BCH after the fork. At a cost basis of about 17:1. It was a vote of confidence in what I see as BCH's superior monetary characteristics. Will I be vindicated in the end? Jury is still out. But I'm winning so far. Perhaps that's what's really bugging you. |
|
|
|
What ever you do do NOT listen to Jbreher, he is one of those Bcash shit noobs. He's here since 2011 and still dont understand a thing about Bitcoin and how to keep it decentralised, in fact he loves Bcash road map wich leads to heavy centralisation. Shilling Bcash at other subs and here he's handwaving... While I view BCH as The One True Bitcoin You're really a piece of work, you know that paashaas? Here I'm engaging in some friendly banter, completely free of any advocacy whatsoever. You're the asshole that decided to tout my preferences. Is that the way you interact in F2F social situations as well? You're probably headed for dying cold, scared, and alone. And broke. You claim I 'don't understand a thing about Bitcoin'. However, I have enough BTC (yes, BTC) to live in luxury for the rest of my life. Hell, I _also_ have enough BCH to live in luxury for the rest of my life. Hey! Two luxurious lives for the price of one! Such a deal! Go fuck yourself. Gosh so polite  I try to be polite to all. Until they show themselves to be undeserving. Polite != dishrag. I did not lob the first grenade here. Anyhoo, what does having some btc or indeed that other thing have to do with understanding it?
The precise quote was 'don't understand a thing about Bitcoin'. My hodlings demonstrate conclusively that I understand that this first and greatest decentralized money would -- and will continue to -- appreciate in value, due to its superior characteristics as money. I could have sold it all at $2, $13, $36, $266, $1080, or $20,000, and profited greatly at any of those stages. But I didn't. Sure, it's not proof of a lot of understanding but it is certainly proof of some understanding. And easily dispatched. Paashass is the kind of fuckin' coward that taunts others -- knowing he/she would be free of any retribution -- only when thinking the sentiment of the crowd is solidly behind him/her. As in dragging others down, is the only way he/she feels better about him/herself. Quite frankly, I really don't see how I'm the one in the wrong here. |
|
|
|
The 4 orange letters seem to spell BICH
yeap another 2000 points (so far) bull run on BitCH/BTC pair. Congrats to jbreher. Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment. Though I didn't have anything to do with it. Other than to hodl, that is. |
|
|
|
he is the most polite one
In a slide the dagger between your ribs sort of way. Perhaps you explain how you figure my actions are in any way similar to personal intimate lethal violence? |
|
|
|
What ever you do do NOT listen to Jbreher, he is one of those Bcash shit noobs. He's here since 2011 and still dont understand a thing about Bitcoin and how to keep it decentralised, in fact he loves Bcash road map wich leads to heavy centralisation. Shilling Bcash at other subs and here he's handwaving... While I view BCH as The One True Bitcoin You're really a piece of work, you know that paashaas? Here I'm engaging in some friendly banter, completely free of any advocacy whatsoever. You're the asshole that decided to tout my preferences. Is that the way you interact in F2F social situations as well? You're probably headed for dying cold, scared, and alone. And broke. You claim I 'don't understand a thing about Bitcoin'. However, I have enough BTC (yes, BTC) to live in luxury for the rest of my life. Hell, I _also_ have enough BCH to live in luxury for the rest of my life. Hey! Two luxurious lives for the price of one! Such a deal! Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
|
BitcoinInstant[BTI] came out wayyy before Bcash :-D *stay tuned*
Stay tuned for what? Stay tuned for BitInstant to be big enough to be tracked among the other 1575 'most significant' cryptos on coinmarketcap? Riiiiiight. |
|
|
|
I could be ((( d_eddie ))) for all you know, or half-asian (Thai mom), or black or Inuit - well, I admit the latter's unlikely, but I could be. I guess you see what I mean.
I dunno... you look kinda ... Beijoran Bajoran to me. Or something. Not that there's anything wrong with that. FTFY *Star Trek NerdFair 'nuf. (But... spelling aside, dontchathinkso?) |
|
|
|
In theory all the oxygen in the room you currently reside in could go to the roof, leaving your with a nice mix of co2 and nitrate to try breathing. In theory.
Not without an influx of energy in order to overcome the entropy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
