BU is more voted, what does this tell you?
That it's not a vote, lol When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it If only C rated Banks reject I'm fine with such poor predictions....  |
|
|
|
Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.  There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client. ... and still : Not voting for SW because of all that nice little core goodies -> BU is more voted, what does this tell you? |
|
|
|
I will agree that the governance decision should be made more transparent but both miners and development team are guilty of this
we need to return to the mindset that we do not need a governance of DEVS nodes are the boss. pools are the secretary devs are the workers And now put some numbers behind, how much their investments / risks really are and how much they have so say because of that ? |
|
|
|
|
Just take Ton Vays and do a little scam show about this...
|
|
|
|
*** A real computer scientist would not give a shit. ***
satoshi was not a normal computer scientist h
he was a generalist.
ecominiocs
statistics
law
computer science.
Wright is tring to hide it and make ppl think he is not, but wrights PhD is in the uni library. so, they say no wright but ti is listed there
wright is in newcastle as a post grad stats - same wright
wright is in northumbria as postgrad law - same wright
U London has wright but cannot find details and nobody talks....
wright taught computer science...
i think wright is just trying to make us ignore him
And some bamboozled |
|
|
|
Next stop is parity with the year. 2017$ |
|
|
|
..., it'll be used to hedge and invest, the fees are extremely competitive for that and capacity is fine.
Kind of like the derivatives ticking time bomb that will need to be propped up with tax payers cash. People wanting to buy a coffee will just need to use something like dash.
Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested. DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad. ETH might need to do the same (PoS) to achieve scalability with smart contracts on top... Bad security! |
|
|
|
Hab gerade bei nem Trade eine Null zu viel gemacht, habs aber schnell korrigiert. Sorry Leute für den Stress.  Kein Problem, aber wo bleiben die Linien von Mario? Muss arbeiten Selbst Gold und Silber etc. erholen sich. Da kommt irgendetwas Ich hab heut noch mal mein Konto ausgeräumt, warum auch immer.  He, schau nochmalngenau nach. Das war meins!  |
|
|
|
I dare not imagine the movement after the official announcement
just fasten seat belt a bit |
|
|
|
Its pretty logical:
Blockstream offers very limited space for miners, but unlimited for 2nd layer = Blockstream Unlimited 2ndLayer Coins
Good for Miners ? - No, only good for 2nd layer projects. Penalty for miners. Not economically balanced!
Bitcoin Unlimited offers both - just no limits = real disruption bitcoin <- I want rather that
Miners might be more happy with that open competition vs 2nd layer scaling. Better eco balanced.
Well you dont want to give too much power to miners otherwise they will act like a pseudo government. Of course I dont know how good the 2nd layer will be and how decentralized. It seems to me that neither Segwit nor BU is good. That is why they have only 25% approval. we cannot 'give'. they take because they can due to their role and investment. you would do the same in their place. |
|
|
|
Satoshi never intended to remove the limit.
Satoshi never intended to get close to the limit. It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade. In b4 OP says: It can we can I can. Satoshis intention was to never change the blocksize limit. ... and the initial was 32MB - OK |
|
|
|
Hello class ..can we say "pending train wreck"  Lets face it guys it is ALL my fault....if BTC tanks to 'beanie baby status". My one shot at making a killing. The ASIC/CRYPTO gods shall likely 'smite' me and I will take you all with me... (hey its a gift ..if there is money to be made..I can inverse that puppy in no time at all)  No - it's not your fault. We've been told right before the start: It just cannot scale - and we tired anyway: http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09963.html |
|
|
|
Find any artificial use case for SW. They vote for and losing ground now ? Desperate ? |
|
|
|
It seems to me that BU will take over Segwit. I dont know if it's good or bad.
But the inability of the devs to figure out a solution faster is leading to this. Plus, we are tired of huge fees.
So whatever can fix the fee problem, I will stand besides it.
If we dont fix the fee problem, we wont have any bitcoin to debate about, so better choose now, and risk bitcoin, than to lose bitcoin altogether over some other coin.
It's a good thing. Core and Blockstream don't think there is a fee problem. They want to kick regular people off the network by maintaining 1mb blocks, a limitation originally intended as an anti-spam measure. Bitcoin unlimited isn't against 2nd layer solutions (look up flextrans) but not to the determent of normal people using the Bitcoin Block Chain. Its pretty logical: Blockstream offers very limited space for miners, but unlimited for 2nd layer = Blockstream Unlimited 2ndLayer Coins Good for Miners ? - No, only good for 2nd layer projects. Penalty for miners. Not economically balanced! Bitcoin Unlimited offers both - just no limits = real disruption bitcoin <- I want rather that Miners might be more happy with that open competition vs 2nd layer scaling. Better eco balanced. |
|
|
|
Miners might collude and switch with that momentum.
It might also be that miners support BU to the height to make sure that segwit doesn't get activated, but don't want BU either. Miners make most profits with small blocks and no segwit: they sell block chain room. That may, in the long run, become the most valuable commodity, not bitcoin's coins. If BU gains control of Bitcoin, they could keep blocks small to reap more transaction fees. No. The way mining works, they try to solve the hash puzzle and as soon as they solve the hash puzzle they publish the block and hope it isn't orphaned. Every TX they include is additional money, it is not in their best interest to exclude transactions that pay a fee - that's money they are giving away to one of their competitors. When blocks are not full it is because they solved the block before validating enough transactions to fill it. There is a bounty in the mempool already thats worth to mine. The block size is a non linear optimization problem but there will be a finit optimal block size for every adoption rate. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is about disruption and momentum and its free and censorship resistant.
Blockstream money is disrupted by BU, the free unlimited version of bitcoin.
The momentum is at BU side.
Miners might collude and switch with that momentum.
|
|
|
|
Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all to easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement
That said, with segwit, bitcoin BECOMES a banking industry... Explain. Writing ... is not an explanation That s a very easy one. I try: Its not supported by AAA banks, nor by bbb banks but by C banks - having worst rating ever seen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
