It would be best if SegWit was completely rejected. Otherwise BTC will be slowly turned into a centralized bankster coin. I am running a full node and I rejected SegWit by running Bitcoin Unlimited. The next big rally will require bigger blocks. SegWit wouldn't ever provide enough block space for the next rally over 10 000$. It just makes the code more complex and centralizes everything around the corrupt Core team. The bankster takeover is so obvious.
How SegWit centralizes everything ? I think bankster want Bitcoin Unlimited to centralise it. Listen to the audio in my signature about SegWit. I am actually using very simple reasoning. The Core team censors forums and discussion boards. The one who start censoring the opposing opinions is the bad guys, it's always like that. By censoring content the Core team revealed themselves as foul actors. About Bitcoin Unlimited. I support free markets. Bitcoin Unlimited allows every node to define their own maximum block size that they are willing to broadcast to neighbouring nodes. This empowers the nodes which decentralizes the network even more. SegWit, on the other hand, empowers the Core team which in turn is funded by banksters. Follow the money and use your common sense. SegWit is the first step of bankster takeover. Like with laws and regulations they include a lot of good stuff in the same package with some really nasty stuff. SegWit is an ugly hack but to deceivingly make it appear less ugly they have provided solutions to hardware wallet providers and a fix to TX malleability within the same package. I'd say let's make a proper hard fork so the code would maintain its simplicity and let's add features one-by-one instead of trying to get a bunch of updates accepted all at once. |
|
|
|
1. I'm taking my chances, it is very important for Bitcoin to reject SegWit. If it fails we lose BTC, and it will become yet another Ethereum centralized bankstercoin
Nonsense FUD by someone who's either very misinformed or just trolling. 2. Yes I am a bitcoin holder since 2011 and I belive the price will rise more without SegWit.
Doesn't matter even if you were satoshi, this does not give you more credibility. 3. Unlimited blocks is the most decentralized and best free market based attempt for scaling. I support Satoshi's original vision. If you disagree with Satoshi go ahead and create SegWItCoin as an altcoin to Bitcoin.
No. Unlimited blocks are inherently safe. Also stop appealing to authority. Just because Satoshi created it, or had a vision, that does not mean that that is the utmost correct and perfect way to move to. You are generating nonsense FUD. It does matter what was the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. There is no such thing as unlimited blocks because network speed will cap the block size anyway. Eventually the combination of free market and network speed will result in the floating maximum block size. Bitcoin will be more decentralized and thus more trustworthy. I am running Bitcoin Unlimited full node and my node is already finding and connecting to other such nodes. You can say what you want but the numbers won't lie. People prefer decentralization and Satoshi's original vision to the corrupt ideas of Bitcoin-core dev team funded by banksters. |
|
|
|
|
It would be best if SegWit was completely rejected. Otherwise BTC will be slowly turned into a centralized bankster coin. I am running a full node and I rejected SegWit by running Bitcoin Unlimited. The next big rally will require bigger blocks. SegWit wouldn't ever provide enough block space for the next rally over 10 000$. It just makes the code more complex and centralizes everything around the corrupt Core team. The bankster takeover is so obvious.
|
|
|
|
As of today I am running Bitcoin Unlimited. Just say no to SegWit. Here's what made me switch from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited: https://vid.me/kz1s1. unlimited will not have any chances, be realistic 2. I suppose you are a bitcoin investor and are interested in rising prices. This will happen if SegWit and later LN will be accepted 3. unlimited blocks is the easiest but worst attempt for scaling 1. I'm taking my chances, it is very important for Bitcoin to reject SegWit. If it fails we lose BTC, and it will become yet another Ethereum centralized bankstercoin 2. Yes I am a bitcoin holder since 2011 and I belive the price will rise more without SegWit. 3. Unlimited blocks is the most decentralized and best free market based attempt for scaling. I support Satoshi's original vision. If you disagree with Satoshi go ahead and create SegWItCoin as an altcoin to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Just to let you guys know a big crash is coming in 2016 in the economy. There is going to be a huge financial crisis but it will be worse than 2009.
The bitcoin price will skyrocket to over $10,000. However bitcoin will be banned in all western countries. If you are reading this living in the west you should make preparations to move to Russia or China they are the only places you will be safe owning bitcoins.
The crisis will be so big it will destroy entire countries and in 2017 there will be a civil war in the USA, UK and western europe. After this the world will never be the same again it will change so much by 2020 it will be unrecognizable compared to today.
I just read it and I believe this is a VERY REAL possibility. I guess I'll have to move to Russia then  |
|
|
|
Good bull trend got cancelled by chinese hoax.  It got cancelled by people that are either taking way too high risks with their money (money that they can't live without in their private life), or by people that are blindly buying (the gamblers) themselves into Bitcoin and expect insane returns. Experienced Bitcoiners knew exactly what was happening and greatly took advantage of the situation by securing profits, and buying back at the right time. Time on time again it surprises me that how easily people here can be fooled. Yup. Just hodl if you can't take the pressure of wild swings. |
|
|
|
It has everything to do with the block size debate because many in the Bitcoin community including many in the Bitcoin core team see keeping the block size small as solution to this question, at least on an interim basis until a permanent solution is found. Dismissing the small bloc side of the debate as "conflict of interest" ignores the reality that there are very strong and legitimate arguments on both sides of the block size debate. Furthermore one can legitimately argue that the reason why there in no consensus is because there is no solution or the solution is highly elusive.
Yes this is the elephant in the room many in the Bitcoin community would rather not talk about. Shooting at the messenger by calling my post off topic in very much an indication of this sentiment.
Edit: One must also keep in mind that Satoshi added the 1 MB blocksize limit as a hard fork in 2010. This was well over 1 year since the launch of Bitcoin in 2009.
I have to admit I laugh when I read your text. I cannot take it seriously. Take this sentence for example: the reality that there are very strong and legitimate arguments on both sides of the block size debate.
Why is it so that I see no strong and legitimate arguments on the SegWit/Core side then? The 1 MiB limit was a joke even when Satoshi came out with it but I guess he was a bit too much afraid of possible attacks on a young network. So okey, I don't blame him too much for that. The only reason why Bitcoin Unlimited is not the most popular full node yet is this constant censoring, trolling and suppression which you are obviously involved in. Let me remind you again and again and on and on that miners are not obliged to include all TXs in a block. Even if there was no maximum block size limit miners would still produce rather small blocks. Hell, some miners are even known to mine empty blocks. But of course, a competing altcoin proponent would like Bitcoin to stop growing so that their shitcoin could steal some of Bitcoin's market cap. Seeing a label "Monero Core Team" under your avatar just proves the fact that you have a dog in this fight and that dog ain't Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
It comes down to the more fundamental question: How does one secure Bitcoin once the the block reward runs out or becomes minimal? The theory is that transaction fees will fill this void; however the question of how this is supposed to happen has not been answered in Bitcoin. This goes back to the original Satoshi design and very few people are actually prepared to question Satoshi on this implicit transaction fee assumption.
this is offtopic by far. It has nothing to do with block size debate. You either believe in satoshis plan or not. If you don't then why are you here? |
|
|
|
Just an update as of 11/03/16 , 01:14 Am Forum time. The price of bitcoin is now $743 and it is really heading higher and higher. History repeats itself, just like what happened from the last rapid increase, bitcoin just did it again that it rise again and flying up to the moon. But I'm becoming scared, because out of this pump, dump will happen too.
there's not going to be a dump this time. It is the dollar/fiat that is going to dump this time. |
|
|
|
|
I simply laugh in the face of all those nonbelievers right now. I remember a particular someone telling me that BTC will bounce down from 600$ in the Summer. Sucks to be a bitcoin hater these days. BTW guys, don't update to SegWit, it's evil, see my signature.
|
|
|
|
|
This is it. Bitcoin going bananas.
|
|
|
|
As of today I am running Bitcoin Unlimited. Just say no to SegWit. Here's what made me switch from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited: https://vid.me/kz1s |
|
|
|
...
Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.
A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward? TX fees. How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is no cap on block size/space? How do you ensure enough fees exist if there is 1 MiB cap on block size/space? In some of my earlier posts I have indicated that there is no such thing as "no cap on block size". There is always going to be a hard cap defined by the network parameters. It is so whether the consensus likes it or not. Since the effective maximum block size is dependent on the overall network speed it does not belong to a protocol layer. Instead, each and every node should be able to define their own preferred maximum block size just like nodes can define their own TX fee. What core is trying to accomplish is like trying to enforce a predefined TX fee for every node with an ugly hack. Bitcoin wallet software is already complex. Making it even more complex will just prevent new developers from contributing. For a MIT licensed open-source project this is hypocrisy overload. Not to mention that blockstream is not the owner nor the creator of Bitcoin. Yet they act like they were. This is unacceptable. |
|
|
|
Ethereum Classic is a good example of how a fork will turn out. Stakeholders will lose nothing. We don't need consensus. Both parties can have their own fork of Bitcoin and go on their own way. Eventually the most effective one will prevail.
Now we obviously have a bunch of egoistic manboys on both sides who think their fork should be THE BITCOIN and the other fork should be something else. I don't have an answer to this, it's just stupid. But as I have said before this situation will be solved by itself. No party is stupid enough to fork right now without having a consensus.
i think its best you highlight ethereums "fork" was an intentional split. otherwise it confuses the issue of what a fork is soft fork= no permanent split, no consensus needed by user level nodes, only consensus needed by pools to activate hard consensual fork= no permanent split, consensus needed by user level nodes first then pools second to activate hard controversial fork = no permanent split, consensus isn't set, lots of orphaning occurs because no one can agree hard intentional split fork= permanent split, nodes 'ban IP' the opposition nodes to avoid them orphaning own desires, altcoin is created The next big bitcoin rally brings a new wave of people first time into the Bitcoin business. We can call them "the next generation of Bitcoiners". A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. The new generation of Bitcoiners will have to choose a wallet. They will read the descriptions of Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Core. I'm sure they will choose BU because it's an elegant solution while SegWit is an ugly hack. Even if the network is unable to come to a preliminary consensus and multiple forks come to be, it is possible to build a Bitcoin wallet that tracks ownership on all forks. What needs to be propagated is the fact that the longest chain is the true Bitcoin block chain. It is the responsibility of wallet providers to prevent users from spending coins that don't belong to the longest block chain. |
|
|
|
...
TX fees.
I was actually expecting this response. What then prevents TX fees from going to zero if there is an unlimited blocksize? Keep in mind that if all TX fees do is overcome the orphan block penalty the net fee paid to the miner would still be zero. There are 2 kinds of maximum block sizes. The theoretical/logical one currently is 1 MiB. The practical one is much higher and is dependent on the network speed of most miners. It is impossible to exceed the practical block size limit because when exceeded your block will simply be orphaned. Even 95% consensus would not allow us to have blocks larger than the practical maximum block size. It is very possible to exceed the logical block size limit on the other hand but it requires consensus. That said, in both cases we do have a maximum block size limit which means TX fees won't go to zero. Even if they did go to zero due to altruistic miners there are block rewards which are essentially equivalent to TX fees paid by all Bitcoin stakeholders collectively. In the hypothetical situation where Bitcoin price is too damn low and block reward is worth nothing miners will start dropping out. Those with cheaper electricity or simply altruistic miners will remain. Tor nodes don't get no block reward but they still exist! Sure the network is slow but it is wrong of you to assume that every person on Earth is egoistic. Also, stakeholders are definitely willing to protect their investment by providing additional security to Bitcoin network. Finally, 51% attack is not as destructive as you think it is. If it's executed by ASICs then the community will simply change the mining algorithm. The true value of Bitcoin is not held in its protocol but in its block chain. The block chain is distributed and cannot be attacked in any way. 51% attack does nothing to the old blocks. That's why Bitcoin Unlimited is not an altcoin! Ethereum Classic is a good example of how a fork will turn out. Stakeholders will lose nothing. We don't need consensus. Both parties can have their own fork of Bitcoin and go on their own way. Eventually the most effective one will prevail. Now we obviously have a bunch of egoistic manboys on both sides who think their fork should be THE BITCOIN and the other fork should be something else. I don't have an answer to this, it's just stupid. But as I have said before this situation will be solved by itself. No party is stupid enough to fork right now without having a consensus. As demand for blocks goes up TX fees will gradually rise. The backlog of TXs will also rise. Eventually miners will start noticing that they are missing out a lot of profits because they are not mining for larger blocks. At that point they will switch to Bitcoin Unlimited. With Bitcoin-core miners actually are the losers because Bitcoin gets more centralized around the Core Maffia which will impose their will over the miners even more. Smart miners are going to choose Bitcoin Unlimited. |
|
|
|
personally everyone switching to bitcoin unlimited is just as bad as everyone switching over to core.. it removes diversity.. however core should have its own user defined blocksize option instead of node users needing to cry to core for more and having devs say yes or no. like some oliver twist food scene.
no one should have sole power over change. it should remain decentralized and diverse. but allow the freedom of growth by not stifling growth for corporate greed/ego/profit agenda
Yeah I would stay at core but have a custom block size limit for my node and reject SegWit. I think I could compile my own custom build from core's src code having block size increased and segwit disabled. |
|
|
|
we should not implement monero's version..
by that i mean
NOTHING should ever even come close to messing with the block reward mechanism. no way to higher it or reduce it.. apart from the built in halving mechanism that should continue doing what its doing.
again nothing else should mess with the reward mechanism now or in the future.
however over the next few DECADES the fee's become more important so miners will want to slowly have more transactions so that the fee's dont have to become expensive to subsidize the drop in reward per 4 years..
its better to have 9000 transactions at 1cent rather than 1 transaction at 9000cents.
and yes that might only be $90 but like i said the reward:fee switch over is not a problem today. but in DECADES so in DECADES we would hopefully be at more than 9000 transactions a block.
even if the doomsday agenda crew keep putting capacity of DECADES into rhetoric of this or last year. not understanding things grow.
after all.. 2 years ago core was saying 2mb bloat would kill chinese miners. but now saying 4mb bloat is ok.. funny that.
afterall.. 16 years ago the largest hard drive you could get was 4GB..
things grow and change given time
+1 I have spread the Bitcoin Unlimited propaganda on the bitcoin's own block chain now.  Interestingly, Bitcoin Unlimited is a featured wallet at bitcoin.com. This just made me trust Bitcoin Unlimited even more. |
|
|
|
...
Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place.
A free market implies payment. How are the miners supposed to be paid without a block reward? TX fees. |
|
|
|
Maybe a more appropriate question here is: Is decentralized blocksize scaling in Bitcoin actually viable without a violation the 21,000,000 XBT limit? Changing the blocksize from 1 MB to 4MB via a hard fork does not change anything. It only pushes the problem down the road. I responded to the other thread in the altcoin section, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1666646.msg16746609#msg16746609, with respect to BItcoin unlimited. I think the block size issue is actually a no-issue. It will sort itself out eventually. When all BTC wallets implement floating fees that are based on the unconfirmed transactions then TX fees will start to rise naturally. At the same time block reward keeps halving and BTC price climbs higher. Eventually miners will realize that they are missing out a lot of profits because of the block size limit. They will then switch to Bitcoin Unlimited. |
|
|
|
If it only were that simple. I have also been in the Bitcoin business since 2011. The fundamental failure of applying Monero type scaling models, where the miners are penalized a percentage of the blockreward if they mine bigger blocks, to Bitcoin is what happens when the block reward runs out. If the block reward runs out there is no penalty and no incentive for the miners to secure the coin. If one reads Peter R. Rizun's paper https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf, one will understand that the effective miner penalty for increasing the blocksize due to orphan blocks is proportional to the block reward. The only reason miner penalties that are proportional to the block reward work in Monero is that Monero has a perpetual block reward (tail emission). Bitcoin does not. There is a reason why there are many in Bitcoin that are opposed to increasing the blocksize. They understand that without a a minimum perpetual block reward (tail emission), Bitcoin has to rely on fees to provide an incentive to the miners. This means one has to limit the blocksize in order to force the fees to go up. Edit 1; Dogecoin unlimited may work but not Bitcoin unlimited. Edit 2: I have listened to the video and yes I see how Blockstream when combined with a very small blocksize does become a tool for the existing banking system. This however does not change the reality that there is currently no viable solution for decentralized blocksize scaling without a tail emission. If someone has such a solution I would like to see it. Although your reasoning is plausible I would still argue that a free market solution would fix everything. Miners that are not satisfied with the rewards gained from the fees can feel free to quit mining. I will gladly be amongst the ones filling their place. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
