Am I the only who thinks this whole scaling issue shouldve been solved early 2014? It's known for a while now that bitcoin in it's current form is not suitable for mass adoption/transactions... Last week my bank deposit was credited even faster than my bitcoin transaction  If you want to blame anyone for this scaling/fork talk mess... Blame bitcoin core dev team for not taking appropiate action sooner... (Cmon, a 2-3 years and ongoing discussion about upscaling?? Epic fail) Hm - I rather wonder, why this shitty 1MB is there in the consensus protocol, not a user configuration param at all (I can define my own SPAM or pay for max size in my mail account, as I want it ...). Having this 'indefinite thing' in the consensus, anyone can start any 'tech' stuff around that shit and call them a geek .... |
|
|
|
OK - looks like miners colluded (intention) down to about 90% and choose SW2x - question: what have nodes to do now ? |
|
|
|
I lol so hard at the BU blocks. Why? Why oh why! -edit- looks like the BU blocks are slowly dying so whoever was running BU nodes is slowly migrating.
Never fear, the big blockers will be back with their next hard fork coup attempt in the guise of bitcoinABC. And Band of UASF Brothers will be waiting for them again. We till throw them into the sea just like the last time.   I see - you are fully prepared for the mass adoption - here you go and get Bitcoins' reputation up to its' limits....  |
|
|
|
BIP91 blocks are at 52.1% now. I lol so hard at the BU blocks. Why? Why oh why! -edit- looks like the BU blocks are slowly dying so whoever was running BU nodes is slowly migrating.
.... what's about the 2x later this year. Do you care? Do core care? |
|
|
|
Question: seeing majority of miner voting for SW2x, haven't core's and UASF nerd's fears of centralization driven miners to finally collude and now ending up in a perfect centralization, but against core and exact their fears??  Looks like F2pool did not want to collude fully, so they are getting a ddos attack to learn it? |
|
|
|
Question: seeing majority of miner voting for SW2x, haven't core's and UASF nerd's fears of centralization driven miners to finally collude and now ending up in a perfect centralization, but against core and exact their fears?? |
|
|
|
Thema Zentralisierung: - ...freier Blockgröße: Die Blockgröße wird soweit ansteigen, bis die Nachfrage nach Transaktionskapazität befriedigt ist. Ist dafür dann ein 20k Node notwendig, können nur noch Teilnehmer mit entsprechendem Geschäftsumsatz einen solchen Node betreiben. Dieser Geschäftsumsatz kann auf vielfältige Weise erreicht werden. Die direkte Variante ist, Node-Services gegen Gebühr anzubieten. Unter den Node-Service-Providern wird es zu Konkurrenz kommen. Der Markt entscheidet unter Berücksichtigung der Gesamtlage (d.h. Hardware-Preise, geopolitische Lage, Nutzerzahlen, ...), wieviel Ressourcen auf den Betrieb des Bitcoin-Netzwerks verwendet werden. Praktisch ideale Dezentralisierung.
Das ist doch komplett Science fiction aus heutiger Perspektive. Wenn es einen Mechanismus im Bitcoin-Protokoll gäbe, der Nicht-Mining-Nodes entlohnt, gäbe es viel weniger Widerstand gegen eine Blocksize-Erhöhung. Wozu brauchst du den Mechanismus auf Protokoll-Ebene? Deinen Internetprovider kannst du ja auch für seine Dienstleistung bezahlen, ohne dass ein Bezahlmechanismus in die gängigen Internet Protokolle eingebaut wäre. Aber wieder ein schönes Beispiel für meine Aussage von oben: "nicht nur die technische Seite betrachten, auch die wirtschaftliche". - ...freier Blockgröße: [siehe oben].
Schön, dass du das auch aufschreibst - Lustiger Weise denke ich, dass Bitcoin wahrscheinlich vor dieser Situation durch die Konkurrenz mit den Altcoins gerettet werden wird. Sollte Bitcoin allerdings die absolut dominierende Währung auf der Welt sein, wäre das allerdings durchaus möglich, dann haben wir praktisch wieder Banken, außer dass diese eben nicht SEPA und SWIFT, sondern Bitcoin nutzen. Ein bisschen spannend wird es aber schon, wer in Zukunft noch Lust hat Full Nodes laufen zu lassen und andere diese kostenlos nutzen zu lassen, vor allem wenn die Anzahl der Full Nodes sinkt und gleichzeitig die Anzahl der Nutzer weiter ansteigt. Wieso sollte ein Node-Provider eher einer Bank ähneln, als ein Off-Chain Hub? Du musst bedenken, dass man die Daten von mehreren Node-Providern vergleichen kann und ziemlich schnell auffliegt, wenn einer schummelt. Wenn erstmal bekannt ist, dass ein Node-Provider schummelt, ist auch ziemlich schnell sein Geschäftsmodell kaputt. Bei einem Off-Chain Hub habe ich nicht die Möglichkeit, dessen Ehrlichkeit durch die Konkurrenz zu verifizieren. Über die Anzahl der Full Archival Nodes mache ich mir auch keine Sorgen, da gibt es genug Teilnehmer, die ein Interesse daran haben einen solchen zu betreiben: Exchanges, Payment Provider, Bitcoin Whales, Miner, Node-Service-Provider, Blockchain Investigation Services, große Firmen mit genug Umsatz und dem entsprechenden Sicherheitsbedürfnis, ... Und auch die "alles kostenlos" Kultur wird nicht zu kurz kommen: Jedes Geschäft, das Bitcoin akzeptieren möchte, wird dem Kunden auch entsprechende Node-Services zur Verfügung stellen. In der Kneipe um die Ecke gibt es ja auch eine kostenlos nutzbare Toilette, obwohl der Wirt daran nichts verdient. Für den Privat-Nutzer wird es entsprechende Web-Services und Smartphone Apps geben, die sich durch Werbung und den Verkauf von Datenbeständen, mit denen man Transaktionen einer Identität zuordnen kann, finanzieren. Genau so, wie es im restlichen Internet eben auch läuft. Alles richtig, der schlaue Flipper. Wo denn bloss die alle hingeganen sind, nachdem die Erde einer Hyperraumstrasse weichen musste...? |
|
|
|
|
Do you see blocks from F2Pool?
|
|
|
|
Phhhh - breaking over 8 year old Satoshi's consensus ...  That's what happens when you decentralize.  Good point - or you'll rather see that the protocol has just too many useless constraints.... because the main idea is always the same. |
|
|
|
Phhhh - breaking over 8 year old Satoshi's consensus ... |
|
|
|
Stolen work:  |
|
|
|
Well indeed it seems some of you have snapped up cheap coins cause price recovered a bit. If it stays above 2K for a while I'd be happy with that  It's a classic bull trap, there's plenty of room for more downside... Just wait til 20% of miner hashpower pulls out of Segwit2x... And the 80 % dedicate some hashpower to attack the minority chain ... is the difficulty adjusted quicker for the UASF berserkers? Or do they finally accept the SW in the SW2x ? (Shit the 20% could be the SW refusers ?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg20185001#msg20185001I kind of doubt that we are going to get such a nice and clean resolution. Wouldn't it be nice if Jihan and his follower, Roger Ver and his followers and Craig Wright and his followers all forked off? How much mining power and economic nodes would they take with them? Maybe coinbase? I don't think coinbase is that dumb, but who knows? Bitcoin is based on PoW ? What do you think is easier: Tell few people to just fork off or Get them all to consensus? What side are you on ? Proof There are various ones who have been threatening to fork bitcoin for nearly two years, so I don't know about sides, but it seems to be kind of problematic. Of course, if they fork, then they prefer that the majority of economic nodes and users will follow them. This is not about me. I am just making a statement that maybe it could be better if they fork, because they do not want to even attempt to work within existing systems and constantly engaged in threats and gamesmanship that attempt to exploit ways to scare people into their view of an easier and moldable bitcoin that attempts to compete with credit cards and other payment systems. Not so sure. These guys you named they try hard to stay on Satoshi's bitcoin. Or do you speak of buddies building alts, ICOs or side-chains ? |
|
|
|
Well indeed it seems some of you have snapped up cheap coins cause price recovered a bit. If it stays above 2K for a while I'd be happy with that It's a classic bull trap, there's plenty of room for more downside... Just wait til 20% of miner hashpower pulls out of Segwit2x... And the 80 % dedicate some hashpower to attack the minority chain ... is the difficulty adjusted quicker for the UASF berserkers? Or do they finally accept the SW in the SW2x ? (Shit the 20% could be the SW refusers ?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg20185001#msg20185001I kind of doubt that we are going to get such a nice and clean resolution. Wouldn't it be nice if Jihan and his follower, Roger Ver and his followers and Craig Wright and his followers all forked off? How much mining power and economic nodes would they take with them? Maybe coinbase? I don't think coinbase is that dumb, but who knows? Bitcoin is based on PoW ? What do you think is easier: Tell few people to just fork off or Get them all to consensus? What side are you on ? Proof |
|
|
|
Well indeed it seems some of you have snapped up cheap coins cause price recovered a bit. If it stays above 2K for a while I'd be happy with that It's a classic bull trap, there's plenty of room for more downside... Just wait til 20% of miner hashpower pulls out of Segwit2x... And the 80 % dedicate some hashpower to attack the minority chain ... is the difficulty adjusted quicker for the UASF berserkers? Or do they finally accept the SW in the SW2x ? (Shit the 20% could be the SW refusers ?) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg20185001#msg20185001 |
|
|
|
Answer this clearly (don't write useless walls of text). Do you, or do you not agree with $20k as the entry cost for a node (as mentioned by C. scammer Wright)?
this early in the industry no, in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades) as for you debunking anything, no all you ever shout is "nonsensical" "wrong" "adhom" "i didnt read your walls of text" saying such as the things above do not amount to you debunking anything it really is time you learn consensus. it will help you then run independant tests and scenarios then when your handed images. actually read understand test and fully grasp what its telling you and work out if what it is telling you is valid, correct and realistic. dont just paste it because you trust your "friends" We should rather agree that the bitcoin price of such a node should be stable.  EDIT: It also does not really make sense to 'serve' high high end miners with a Rasp PI - that does note really fit into a 'stable' hardware picture to me, rather shows that there might be (hard- AND software) bottlenecks for high end scaling ? |
|
|
|
No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..
Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess). Hahaha - at least we agree that it needs a central forum to agree centrally about decentralization needs. |
|
|
|
THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE
In case you wanted a decentralized BTCT, then it possibly should. Since this is a centralized forum, it does not need to. No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree.. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. Everyone with half a brain should recognize that the unwillingness to increase the blocksize is driven by ulterior motives and greed. A second layer is unnecessary and opposite to Satoshi's stated goal of decentralization.
... that might be also the major reason why 'wrong' posts are sometimes 'moderated' away in distinct forums and discussion platforms to keep such critics down as long as possible and facts are created with software that you cannot easy rollback later . |
|
|
|
... blob ... THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE ... blob ... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
