And here they are on a website... writing comments that "don't exist" under their definition. These people can't be trusted to not lose the key to their bike lock, let alone private keys. They may use it from a front end someday. lol +1 as far as i'm concerned bitcoin is way more "real" than the billions of USD debt being created in some centralized database then magically transferred to the markets and "injected" into them. real money buying shit stocks and bonds!Yup Yup YUP! now lets talk about how bitcoin market is manipulated.... WAKE UP PEOPLE |
|
|
|
We are never going to reach an agreement. The sides are way to far apart.
Just do XT/BIP101 and fork the thing. If people want to try a dynamic adjustment and cannot meet eye-to-eye with the Hearnian people or small-blockists, fork three ways. Then each side goes on their merry way and makes the best of the basic strategy they've chosen.
It's not even relevant to say 'let the best man win.' There are advantages and disadvantages to each strategy. Forking the blockchain is the best way to realize the advantages of each.
I firmly believe that this strategy is the best way to move Satoshi's ideas (whatever they may be) forward, and while there might be some argument that it would damage certain things about Bitcoin they are philosophically fairly weak and the damage being done by trying to make dogs and cats live together in harmony will be far worse.
merchants would be even more confused than they are today about how to accept "Bitcoin", if we split bitcoin now bitcoin dies. what is bitcoin? well which one? there are 3 and they're all exactly the same expect there treament of blocklimit. that'll destroy bitcoin. That's what I mean by 'philosophically fairly weak'. There should be no problem with merchants or anyone else either accepting or not accepting certain flavors. Having a USD, a EURO, a Yuan, etc has not killed commerce. If such a trivial thing is so difficult for them they would not be able to run a business in the first place, and from the consumer end, anyone who could not figure it out probably belongs in a nursing home. Anyway, merchants decisions will likely be made for them when the obtain a crypto-currency license from the state. At some point you need to come to terms with the fact that making a baloney argument then following it up with a declaration like "that'll destroy bitcoin." is simply not a strategy which works on everyone. Probably not even a majority of people, and right about zero percentage of thinking people who matter. LOL wtv man try it and watch everyone back away from bitcoin and then run like hell. its not a bad idea to have different implementations of bitcoin competing, i think the alt coins do just that, and splitting bitcoin over this tiny detail is going to do lot more harm then good. |
|
|
|
We are never going to reach an agreement. The sides are way to far apart.
Just do XT/BIP101 and fork the thing. If people want to try a dynamic adjustment and cannot meet eye-to-eye with the Hearnian people or small-blockists, fork three ways. Then each side goes on their merry way and makes the best of the basic strategy they've chosen.
It's not even relevant to say 'let the best man win.' There are advantages and disadvantages to each strategy. Forking the blockchain is the best way to realize the advantages of each.
I firmly believe that this strategy is the best way to move Satoshi's ideas (whatever they may be) forward, and while there might be some argument that it would damage certain things about Bitcoin they are philosophically fairly weak and the damage being done by trying to make dogs and cats live together in harmony will be far worse.
merchants would be even more confused than they are today about how to accept "Bitcoin", if we split bitcoin now bitcoin dies. what is bitcoin? well which one? there are 3 and they're all exactly the same expect there treament of blocklimit. that'll destroy bitcoin. That's what I mean by 'philosophically fairly weak'. There should be no problem with merchants or anyone else either accepting or not accepting certain flavors. Having a USD, a EURO, a Yuan, etc has not killed commerce. If such a trivial thing is so difficult for them they would not be able to run a business in the first place, and from the consumer end, anyone who could not figure it out probably belongs in a nursing home. Anyway, merchants decisions will likely be made for them when the obtain a crypto-currency license from the state. At some point you need to come to terms with the fact that making a baloney argument then following it up with a declaration like "that'll destroy bitcoin." is simply not a strategy which works on everyone. Probably not even a majority of people, and right about zero percentage of thinking people who matter. LOL wtv man try it and watch everyone back away from bitcoin and then run like hell. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.
An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.
it will always be decentralized in the sense that no one corporation or government controls it, so who cares. Centralization is a spectrum, if we get to close to the centralize edge you should absolutely care i foresee a future where bitcoin is the world reserve currency and governments secure the blockchain expecting bitcoin to grow and always allow full nodes to run off of a 500$ computer is a silly fantasy. |
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if we keep this up we will never reach an agreement. Why not just somehow ...
We are never going to reach an agreement. The sides are way to far apart. Just do XT/BIP101 and fork the thing. If people want to try a dynamic adjustment and cannot meet eye-to-eye with the Hearnian people or small-blockists, fork three ways. Then each side goes on their merry way and makes the best of the basic strategy they've chosen. It's not even relevant to say 'let the best man win.' There are advantages and disadvantages to each strategy. Forking the blockchain is the best way to realize the advantages of each. I firmly believe that this strategy is the best way to move Satoshi's ideas (whatever they may be) forward, and while there might be some argument that it would damage certain things about Bitcoin they are philosophically fairly weak and the damage being done by trying to make dogs and cats live together in harmony will be far worse. merchants would be even more confused than they are today about how to accept "Bitcoin", if we split bitcoin now bitcoin dies. what is bitcoin? well which one? there are 3 and they're all exactly the same expect there treament of blocklimit. that'll destroy bitcoin. |
|
|
|
seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes. Any miner can fork bitcoin. However, nobody is forced to move to that fork. The exchanges also share power in that. As a hypothetical example, let's say that 100% of miners decided they were going to implement some new code that benefited them, at the expense of the exchanges. If the exchanges and merchants banded together and announced that they were not going to move to the new fork, the miners might quickly find themselves on a worthless chain. After the difficulty reset (which, barring yet another fork, would take quite a while), any miner who moved back to the main chain would reap the benefits of a grossly reduced difficulty. In the real world, we all have to work together: miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. A fork in which any one of these groups stands alone would massively set back the public trust in Bitcoin. Miners (who operate 100% on Bitcoin profits, and who have very small profit margins by definition) would be the worst hit. i agree, but as a user, BIP101 BIP100 and BIP1xx are all good enough more me not to care which way it goes. this is probably true for the miners, node operators, users, exchanges, payment processors and merchants. who cares as long as SOMETHING is done about this problem. would it be good for anyone to let this thing drag on for another year? |
|
|
|
It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin
seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes. And ignore the opinion of all of those who rely on the blockchain for their businesses AKA payment processors / market maker and all the decentralized app? wtf? This is not what I call consensus but miners takeover. they are free to make more public statements... my guess is they were contacted by gavin and pressured to sign a doc and they did because they say the real need to incress blocklimit and this WAS the best proposal presented to them now that they know where miners stand, 0% support XT while 65% support BIP100 they might change there mind, in the end they get what they need a blocklimit increase  We are the bitcoin network, Your businesses and users will adapt to service us The will of the network will dissolve your individual opinion resistance is futile |
|
|
|
Many are forseeing the death of bitcoin. Do you believe bitcoin is going to die?
What are the possible substitutes for BTC? State your mind!
bitcoin is dead, use your BTC to buy ETH. |
|
|
|
It doesn't make sense to me that miners vote something that affects so much to bitcoin
seeing how they have the power necessary to fork bitcoin, i think it's ok to let them vote on changes. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.
An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.
it will always be decentralized in the sense that no one corporation or government controls it, so who cares. |
|
|
|
Soon bulls be like   I guess it depends on how you define "soon". I'm willing to wait a few more years if necessary. my bitcoins die with me. |
|
|
|
I'm shocked.... actually not. After miningRatlabs, you lost all your credits. I'm sure not many here know about it. miningRatlabs? |
|
|
|
I actually believe bitcoin is incredibly easy to use. Way easier than it has ever been in fact. I also don't believe that the majority of the community wants to keep bitcoin in the dark. I don't see this.
It is not. Maybe in 5-10 years. idk blockchain.info's wallet is pretty simple. but its true actually using them, learning how to get them, how to securely store them if your want to hold a larger amount long term, etc... isn't exactly easy. |
|
|
|
I love BIP1xx, but didnt hear about it till today, and it seems miners couldn't even vote for that one. |
|
|
|
Soon bulls be like |
|
|
|
|
its too bad BIP1xx isnt getting any love its so good.
|
|
|
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now. its always best to do the trade no one else wants to do. |
|
|
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. mining is decentralized mining CANNOT be centralized, even with 32GB blocks there is never going to be one single mining company and there will always be pools which allow small miners to mine without the need to download / validate blocks. mining will forever be decentralized. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
