I thought his blacklist was just for the Gentoo ebuild and never made it upstream. I also think that his blacklist was just a way for him to push his religious agenda, and doesn't really have anything to do with scaling Bitcoin.
Correct. For him, things are co-related because he assumes these transactions can be discarded, thus making the blocks free up... He isn't entirely wrong though in that there are people wasting their money by making spammy transactions to fill up the blocks. Thats why the fees suddenly drop every so often, because the attack stops.
Attackers have nothing to do with this. The blacklist targeted transactions from online casinos and a few more sites I don't remember from the top of my head. Now the question is: why aren't those transactions legitimate and what makes them less legitimate than our transactions? So miners are the ones to blame here? We were told by miners propaganda that big blocks are the only viable solution to scaling problem.
While in reality:
"Miners are de facto cheating by skipping the very validation that is a crucial part of their job.
This is a fact, but they can still say whatever they want about blocks. FYI:
Increasing Blocksize or a Faster BlockSpeed , Either would Solve the Current ONCHAIN Issues.
Take a note that fast block speeds aren't a bed of roses. And miners will probably be against it (higher chance of orphans) |
|
|
|
luke-jr's ideas never seem to have much acceptance. He gets most of his facts straight, however: No block size increase is needed now. All legitimate uses of the blockchain currently amount to approximately 750k/block average. If inefficient and microtransaction usage is put aside, likely below 500k would be sufficient. luke-jr still says that the blockchain is inefficiently used, which derives from his known "blacklist". He has taken a stance on certain transaction labeling them "inefficient" now and even "spam" in the past. The question is: who are we to take a stance regarding any kind of transaction? At least at transactions whose purpose isn't to disrupt the network. No block size increase is likely to be needed in the near future. Before we reach the point that 1 MB is insufficient, we are likely to have the Lightning protocol working in production. This improves efficiency of blockchain usage by magnitudes, possibly reducing 1 MB block usage to ~10k. Another imprecision is that LN does not improve the efficiency of the blockchain... So yeah, there's that... I guess I'm not really in agreement. At least I don't agree with implementing his ideas. |
|
|
|
This has definitely happen at some points in history. It happened with LTC and now with ETH, when there's something less good with BTC people tend to start talking about other coins... It's not something you can just show a post and prove it exists. It's something generalised and that is somehow discreet. Lauda posted an interesting thread a while back that has a small paragraph regarding this. |
|
|
|
The possibilities this reddit user enumerates are rather catastrophic, but similar things might happen. He seems very fond of ETH, but forgets one thing: if there's a general perception that "Bitcoin is no good", it will drag any other altcoins for sure... ETH isn't some magical being. Besides this, Scenario 2 and 3 can happen simultaneously (Unlimited lacks support and SegWit activates). His view on LN is really interesting, tho. If/When a cryptocurrency manages to achieve mass adoption then it will have hundreds of millions of people, companies, organisations and even countries defending it. I also disagree seriously with this... Why would a country support a decentralized means of payment? Anyways, it was a nice read. |
|
|
|
|
I guess we will never know if there is a bigger power somehow pushing both sides in order to have a stalemate. Some say Blockstream is a big power for the Core side, and there might be or not be a big power on other sides.
However, in what regards users, I don't think there are divide and conquer tactics... We all know we'd lose with such tactics. I think that some people just don't want or can't broaden their knowledge and opinions, and only want to see their side... I assume most of them do this unintentionally. At least this is what I'd like to believe.
|
|
|
|
Interesting article. Bitcoin has indeed been attacked, by all of us and especially for people who can only push to their side and that deny to see what's good in the other camp. In other words, this tiny minority of Bitcoiners wanted to completely rid Bitcoin of its raison d’etre by forcing people to use the very type of system Bitcoin was created to thwart. Maybe a bit over the top, but it gets the point across regarding LN. We can conclude from the article that the attack isn't being made by an implementation in particular, but by some of its users who tend to be a bit extremist. Unlimited is as much as an "attack" on Bitcoin as Core is. They both have proposals to keep Bitcoin moving forward, and those are stepping stones for Bitcoin and that's what will keep us moving forward. |
|
|
|
Just to make this clear, i have no idea how this all works and i don't care either,i just want it to work.
Things aren't going to get fixed for or by people who "don't care". I understand your situation, we are all on the same boat, but when someone claims he "doesn't" care, then the answer is indeed use higher fees... Because nobody cares about people who don't care. However, you care enough to use Bitcoin...  Yes but bitcoin as decentralized coin have its limits storage/network/cpu power. Its easy to call increase 1MB/2MB/3MB/100MB.
To increase BTC size to needed lvl of Visa we need datacenters.
Visa with 2000tx/s have is equal 1000MB blocks and 370 TB year
Do you really believe that full decentralized network can handle that ?
This has been said on the forums many, many times: We aren't getting Visa-like usage out of the blue. |
|
|
|
These guys are going above and beyond with their client  This is my go-to Bitcoin wallet on iOS and it's simply amazing. It follows the "it just works" philosophy of the whole OS... One of those apps that fit greatly on iOS. I'll most likely use this feature when it rolls out beyond the US... I hope that someone shows some screenshots or reviews the feature meanwhile. |
|
|
|
|
I'm wondering if someone managed to develop "fake BU" nodes, just like someone did with XT... That can explain the recent rise in Unlimited-related hashpower.
|
|
|
|
OP, BTU doesn't exist. It's nothing. But I guess that if you indeed own that many coins you know better than me where to put your money  |
|
|
|
|
What are the fees for trading this token? This is ridiculous. I can't see how much are the fees but I assume this is an attempt to open a market that might get some movement in order to get fee money rolling and finally pay the people they owe money from their hack.
Even if this isn't the purpose this is one of the lowest tricks I've ever seen being employed in the Bitcoin community. It surprises me that such a known website decided to employ these tactics... This is why we can't have nice things and this is just pushing the troll agenda further.
The Bitcoin community should stop having any business with Bitfinex whatsoever...
|
|
|
|
Great question and I do not know the answer. But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack.
Unfortunately no proposal seems to solve this, neither temporarily nor permanently. But yes, I can also agree that scaling at least won't make it worse. I've since took the time to read more carefully the link on the OP. The ideas are good, but the end goal is slightly bit unrealistic. Just because Metcalfe's Law has been more or less followed this far it doesn't mean the patter will repeat itself. Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all... |
|
|
|
|
Interesting tweets by Andreas. That being said by him, why don't Core's devs and BU's devs join to make a good QA? Since devs 1000x better at coding don't exist...
|
|
|
|
I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.
I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam? Not sure what you are asking. We can agree that a blocksize spam filter does not work because it will cause more problems to people who genuinely want to use Bitcoin to transact than to spammers who seem to spam just for the sake of spamming. But an aggressive fee market will have the same effect... Raising fees will hinder genuine usage, hence my question: at what cost can the fee market handle spam attacks? Spammers seem to have no problem spending quite a few coins spamming to begin with... |
|
|
|
|
I'm diversifying less and less... In my opinion it's starting to get more risky to diversify. The risk of a fork raising issues isn't as much as having the eggs on other bags...
|
|
|
|
I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.
I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam? |
|
|
|
|
Like that "meme" said, Bitcoin users not affected, lol. Plus, market didn't really care.
|
|
|
|
According to Wikipedia, the Apollo program cost around 25 billion in the 70's, so there you have it, the price for a moon landing  |
|
|
|
You know what happens after a commodity rapidly soars in price?   |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
