Is everybody fine here with the reduced hashpower == security?
No pain no gain. If major miners dont follow this what happens to the block time at beginning?
It will increase. How safe are the first blocks after the activation?
If economic majority supports UASF, even first UASF blocks are reasonably safe. Non-UASF blocks aren't safe at all, even if mining majority doesn't support UASF in the beginning. You start using exact same arguments as people that want HF and are willing to risk even more. I wish you good luck but running into that big risk open eyed looks very desparate little boy. |
|
|
|
ladixDev, this is for you. I hope you understand how we will win. Let's get busy coding and stop bloviating. Make sure you deeply understand everything I have written in that thread for the past 2 days. Understand everything about money and why OpenShare will win. And so now I have finally butted heads with the richest whale in Bitcoin. ladixDev, your heart wants a meritocracy. So let's go make one. Being angry or upset is not a plan. We have a plan. Understand how everything is changing because we are leaving the fixed capital industrial age. You are still fighting the last war. Let's go fight the current war and we have the power. Coding is power. Use your power now to create meritocracy. In as much as pleasing friends is done to augment your own happiness, that's still nothing else but selfish behaviour !
And it is not incongruent with unselfish behavior when we remove the Prisoner's dilemma of fungible money, which I think is roughly what Nash was trying to say. Great post! Back to health?  |
|
|
|
Is everybody fine here with the reduced hashpower == security?
If major miners dont follow this what happens to the block time at beginning?
How safe are the first blocks after the activation?
No, we are not fine with these things. We just try to not waste any more energy on repeating things that are obvious. UASF is not going to work. When the kids "activate" it by tweaking their nodes' software, the bitcoin network isn't even going to shrug on it - it's going to be that meaningless. Mehh, you again. Should not answer all stuff that clear. I wanna see some UASF coins falling...  |
|
|
|
|
The thing is clear, Shelby. All profitable business will lead to centralization, cartells, unequal wealth distribution. All written up in that older thread.
We see this fix point all over in our nature, we just cannot change this. Its like a black hole. So is profitable mining, dammed to tend to centralization finally.
But I still think positive that we might have kind of an equilibrium point that if the degree of centralisation cannot be driven too high, because of trust will collapse finally and price with it.
Where are we now? Do we see the signs now? Time for first reset and can we see if a new start is coming in with better decentralisation ( multiple dev teams, implementations,..)?
|
|
|
|
|
Is everybody fine here with the reduced hashpower == security?
If major miners dont follow this what happens to the block time at beginning?
How safe are the first blocks after the activation?
|
|
|
|
|
If block time gets smaller by a factor > 2 and 21 Mio are constant I m fine....
|
|
|
|
For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once. When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.
This is observably and provably false to any objective observer, as this thread is laden with my citations and quote of my sources to my argument and my explanation as to their relevance to my conclusion which is that bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money. This poster is a liar and know nothing about macro-economics. And the circle is closing. OP is right because you are always right (so the rest of our community are liars and do know nothing about ... Choose what you want, its true because we know that we do know nothing). Strict proof, stricter than math could do and so objective! |
|
|
|
Roger Ver, open your eyes please.
The reason why the price is going down is because we don't like the BU threat that will give the power over the blocksize to just 5 mining pool operators (or effectively 1 ASIC manufacturer.) I like bitcoin for it's decentralization properties, not because I trust Jihan Wu so much. I will never accept the idiotic idea called "emergent consensus."
Big blocks are great. I definitely want to see safely planned blocksize increase after Segwit. And if it won't be merged in the beginning in Bitcoin Core, I will just support another client, but emergent consensus is still a joke and Segwit is still the obvious way forward.
If you still care about bitcoin, you should reconsider your perspective and look what is best for bitcoin.
You open your eyes. Why is there such a room for a 'threat' at all? |
|
|
|
***
Are you sure SW stuff is really better? Why is not even Litecoin live with it?
***
Litecoin mining is controled in 80% by some chinise miner/company related to BTC. So if tat company decide to not add segwit it can not happened. https://litecointalk.io/t/call-to-all-f2pool-miners-please-switch/874This is true and for other major Chinese pools.
10 people from China - control more than 80% of the network hashrate. So same people mine BTC/LTC and stop segwit  China.. Sadly answer to China say FUCK OFF is investing in ETH... (what a ridiculous ending) What does this teach you? We live on a sole planet and the internet opens all borders ( mostly ) but bitcoin does really. Chinese have been good in trading for thousands of years. I m happy to learn what and how they do! Play the game or you might get segregated |
|
|
|
The nature of the BTU is the greed of the miners, so it is essentially an altcoins, it is like the other altcoins, it grows based on the core of bitcoin. It is a copy altcoin, and it is a shameful kind of money. It can grow based on bitcoin's reputation, but I think it can not grow strongly, people will gradually forget it. It caused an internal battle of bitcoin, which made the value of bitcoin decrease, and people felt hated it.
I m sure you ve forgotton about what bitcoin really is. It is a game stabelized by greed. We see just the track it was planned to be on. |
|
|
|
market cap is a meaningless number
Its not entirely meaningless. It may not be entirely accurate, buts not stick our heads in the sand. Every day, ethereum is gaining users, and Bitcoin is losing too many because our network cant scale and is losing utility. Meh. Not real users. Rage quitters, traders, hedgers, gamers. They ll come back because of the real scarcity. The potential higher velocity of ETH is bad for the monetary value. But even this can collapse once ETH scaling is reached as well.. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has build its strong future worlwide , therefore it may be everyone's need in future. Alternate crypto might be dismissed and ignored
We all know that bitcoin's position has already been established, but I don't think other crypto has no chance to be adopted worldwide. Look at what Ethereum is doing right now. The bitcoin has established position. But if it does not evolve, it will be replaced by other coins. That is happening now. Just wait a bit until the bounty in ETH is big enough to be attacked by a turing complete bot and nice crash could be seen or wait until ETH runs into same scaling issues or wait until some group plays with the scarcity or...its FUD...? |
|
|
|
Thx, havnt seen that. Looks bit fuzzy. I d like to see some correlation ana, but maybe data set still to small to get enough confidence. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah. Same shit as always by this paid nerd. Get a life.
Facts remain:
1) BUcoin is shit software and no one supports it
2) 1)
Now go out for a walk, it's friday.
lol there are more implementations than just BU, so why fear BU? We do not fear BU, but rather the code and developers behind it... Franky, if you cannot see the problem with that, I truly feel sorry for you. You make some good points, but BU dev team is a joke. { within a few weeks, they have dropped the ball several times } The Blockstream group are not just focused on Bitcoin.. their mandate go further than that... Their first priority seems to be BTC, but the "solutions" they are working on, can be used on other Alt coins too. All companies have a organizational structure ... even Bitcoin. Gavin was the Lead developer for a long while, after Satoshi left the scene. Are you sure SW stuff is really better? Why is not even Litecoin live with it? We should not care about single teams,better diversify and open bitcoin coding to more like a proper protokoll? Why are miners convinced ? Runinng some user node is no risk to me. Users need not really care like miners do. And yes side sold stuff like LN RSK,.... looks ok on pure user / consumers perspective. Very clear that here more keep core just not to think much about any change that might be needed? |
|
|
|
Sad for all those people who moved their Bitcoin into Altcoin  Not for all the scammers sitting on / selling their pre minted crap. |
|
|
|
BIP148 is coming, so lets look on nodes:
90% Core
10% BU
Lets guess, what will happen when 148 activate in November?
More like: http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html90% Core 2.5% BU 7.5% others. If 148 is USER activated soft fork, and majority of USERS want cheap and fast transactions ON CHAIN, is IS possible to make UAHF and raise block size.
I know, that scaling on chain is impossible, bus as I mention earlier - segwit goodies need time to be up and running, block size works instantly.
You still don't get it, do you? There is no emergent need for a capacity increase HF. As soon as the spam stopped, the mempool is nearly empty. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin@Lauda, blocks are NOT verified as whole at one time. Maybe you forget, that every transaction that is received by node is verified on delivery. New block is announced as header (one hash to verify POW) and hashes of transactions included in it - node just need to verify gentx and pull/verify only MISSING transactions. In other words: if node is online and collecting transactions, even 15MB block can be verified in second, because node know and have verified transactions from block.
I am most certain that you don't know how Bitcoin works. You still verify the whole block, not just a partial part of it.  You can effectively DoS the network with 2 MB blocks. 15 MB is absurdly large, unsafe, unneeded and would take down a high percent of our node count. And how many % are just running SW / core just because of some signed letter politics, hidden or open FED meetings or just uninformed ? What would it look like if all could decide on really a free and uncensored base?
How many % are running BTU/altcoin because Ver or his employees were spreading propaganda and/or were lobbying ViaBTC/TopBTC/Jihan? We don`t know. BIP148 anyway need hashing power, or nodes that support it just ban itself from network into no-new-blocks reality It is 'user-activated', not 'miner-activated'. Nodes >0.13.1 already support BIP148. Im sure you know that moving away from sth that worked for some years is a bigger hurdle than just keep things as usual and stay uninformed. So you re again showing clearly that you compare apples and snakes by claiming BU boys just follow stupid propaganda and high invested miners do not look into risk calcs. Better check what really happens and judge again. |
|
|
|
|
Have you ever seen a 'BTU' ?
Isnt this just a fiction?
Who init that ?
Aha - it s just a meta to divide and conquer... FUD alert.
|
|
|
|
I'm against only increasing block efficiency, SegWit, here is my argument: There is always a compromise when making something too efficient... For example .mp3 has lower quality... "too efficient." .flac has "same quality", but... it has a limit, the same limit as .rar at maximum setting. Is SegWit lossless? If Yes, it has a limit, is that limit enough? Don't think so. Like internet speed vs. file size. If SegWit is Not lossless... security is doomed. Let's talk about electronics, and how they solved that problem. different methods increase efficiency, but compromise... Class-A amplifiers waste 50% of the energy in heat... and heat & power consumption becomes a limit in maximum possible output power, usually considered best sounding amplifiers because the amplifier is always ready, to deliver all the power, so there is no distortions. Class-AB amplifiers, "the most common type in the 70's, 80's & 90's" they increase efficiency, wasting less heat/energy, but introduces crossover distortion at point 0 if not well designed, more complex to design, more expensive but allows more power, usually less than 2000w RMS are Class-AB. Class-H amplifiers adds Voltage shifts like an automatic gearbox of a car, usually has 2-gears, maximum 3, increasing efficiency beyond Class-AB but also increase price, complexity, more size & weight, but allows to have even more power, usually all amplifiers beyond 2000watts are Class-H. PWM Class-D amplifiers, very efficient, much more than Class-H, but sacrifice sound quality, they limit sound quality, like .mp3 but allows to be very light weight, very power efficient, very heat efficient, the result is massive power in a very small size, but the sound quality suffers. The answer to that problem, was making an Envelope Follower Power Supply, much more complex, much more expensive. Like Yamaha EEEengine Technology or some LabGruppen amplifiers. With this technology the power amplifier power supply voltage changes, like Class-H but much more complex, it follows exactly the input load of the signal. Basically it's 2 amplifiers in one. Becoming as efficient as Class-D, with the sound quality of Class-H, if well designed. http://download.yamaha.com/api/asset/file?language=ja&site=countrysite-master.prod.exp.yamaha.com&asset_id=53052Increasing Block Size to unlimited could be considered as Class-A. Increasing & Decreasing Block Size, Following the need of the network, could be like EEEengine. Increasing Block efficiency more data with same size, would be Class-D or .mp3 If there is not a unanimous decision, BitCoin will split, and price will split also. LOL. Jajajajaja Please Share... Comment if you agree. Great stuff. Yes. It just shows there is no IDEAL in our real world projection. We ve always to agree on compromises to get along 'best'. So there is no ideal bs limit, decentralisation, security, adoption, feature list, road map,..... But If you let the market find out by max freedom, we have a good chance to get closest by anti fragility. |
|
|
|
|
Has sombody analysed this ?
Could it be that the fee increase we see puts a inherent economical limit on the max bitcoin price by demand reducing?
And this price limit might just be around 1k (€,$) ?
|
|
|
|
Alts are literally taking over in terms of market cap as we speak. Thx @gmaxwell, thx luke-jr, thx adam back. Thx for destroying Bitcoin.
(this was going to be a bump on a plan b, but we all know the moral and ethereal angel-beings in Core don't do a plan b)
Can Craig Wright please creep out of his hole soon and set things straight?!?! FFS!!!
Yeah. Lessons needs to be learned and we are in the middle of a big social economical experiment where main goal is about disruption. Learned: try to control this by any means is gonna be disrupted. -> let it flow by its greed by design and it will be self healing |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
