How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
Switching to POS = centralization... i always wonder how pos coins handle block limit? and transaction getting stuck? they have the same issue as a pow right? or maybe not because confirmation and fee go to everyone, who is minting because they are the mienrs, i would like to have an explanation on this thanks Transactions are not getting stuck on any of the Alts, because they all have multiple times the Transaction Capacity of BitCrap. And can easily handle what is currently crashing BTC. LTC (for the PoW lovers) has 4X the capacity of BTC ZEIT (PoST) has 20X the capacity of BTC. And it is all due to the fact we both have faster block speeds.  .... and market cap = trust ? |
|
|
|
How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
What the hell is an Ethereim? How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
Switching to POS = centralization... Isn't it the other way around? Take Bitcoin as prime example, most of the hashrate centralized in China due to cheap electricity cost. In PoS there is no electricity cost which means that the network won't only be centralized in places with cheap electricity but can be anywhere -> decentralization. To answer OP's question, in very basic terms. Ethere um uses the same concept as Bitcoin Unlimited = the miners choose how big the blocks are. Not really. PoS = big stakeholders rule, also, PoS is way more insecure than PoW. Nothing tops the security of bitcoin's PoW network with his huge hashing rate. Ethereum = banksters coin. Now big pocketed banks will call the shots. BU just doesn't work, that's why it will never get anywhere. Bitcoin Core is the best we got nowadays objectively. Sure it sucks that china has cheap ass electricity which makes them big players in the mining game, specially when we have that Jihan idiot blocking segwit, but can we do? They still have to deal with the other parties (nodes, merchants, and wallet developers) In BUcoin model, miners rule. In ETHcoin model, banksters rule. Chinese Mining Pools have a Combined 67% of BTC mining for over a year, The only security BTC has is what they grant it, since they can rewrite the last 12 hours of the blockchain on a whim. PoW is not secure, it has larger #s , but those #s are pointless due to a 51% attack. PoS is much more secure, that is why ETH is switching. Oh no - not again - you lost all this discussion about Poor Org Shit so many times now. Security in open internet comes from work, not from bank like ownership. |
|
|
|
Tether is aber nicht dezentralisert sondern ne Ami firma wenn die ihre website schließen ist Tehter tot .
zu risky als Store of value
Deswegen: Short Tether is ok / recommended. |
|
|
|
Gerade m iese Margin Calls bei Polonex bei DASH  3000 BTC Market Buys..... etc die Armen Shorters  So gehts den ETF Shortern bei BTC auch bald... End of Story. Never Short Crypto CUrrencies Tether is ok. |
|
|
|
Just have a look what happens to these two Alts ( and their market caps) and understand what might be good next steps for bitcoin. Agreed, it's a bit far off but attractive to think that way. |
|
|
|
Gold marcet cap ? Oder nur dumme Unze? |
|
|
|
Thoughts welcomed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdyIJ-BUPaU=== Pro-Ver ======= Tone Vays said "Satoshi wasn't the best coder" to defend the Segwit fork. Tone Vays said he was "fine with $100 fees". Tone Vays said he was "fine with bitcoin only being useful for $100,000 transactions". Roger Ver made many salient points about problems people are experiencing due to full blocks, unconfirmed transactions, and high fees. Censorship was an issue that was clearly in favor of Ver. Tone Vays was unable to support his pro-Segwit stance with anything other than appeals to authority. Roger Ver had an excellent point about the "sunk cost fallacy" regarding the 5000 lines of Segwit code. Ver pointed out that Unlimited's Xthin blocks proposal was copied by Core devs with Compact Blocks. Ver pointed out that Bitcoin has an "underlying economic code" that is just as important as the software code. === Pro-Vays ====== Vays was correct that the core dev team is larger and technically more competent. Vays was correct that a soft fork would be less risky than a hard fork. Vays was reasonable in his reliance on technical experts. Neither person is a technical expert, but this was refreshing in that they were able to stay focused on economic issues. Some really stupid argument Tone dared to bring up. Volkswagen, Kodak, Nokia were one of the biggest, trusted,... Go an trust BS core blindly all day... Why the hack SW is not just live ? Is there code inside from all star team, lost traction to the real needs? (Nokia style). Things are changing, deal with it but change. |
|
|
|
How does Ethereim handle the scaling problem? It looks like they will be soon having an insane transaction volume with all the members of the consortium joining and building apps. Why does the Ethereim scaling strategy work there buy not on Bitcoin?
Switching to POS = centralization... |
|
|
|
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/EU-Parlamentsausschuss-billigt-Verbot-anonymer-Online-Zahlungen-3639290.html*snip* edit: das war der treffendste leserkommentar: Natürlich zur Vermeidung von Geldwäsche und Steuerhinterziehung...
Wir erinnern uns, wie Uli Hoeneß sein Geld in 250€-Häppchen per Paysafecard über die Grenze bringen musste.
Unvergessen auch die Paderborner Terrorzelle, die über mehrere Wochen lang Codes von Prepaid-Visakarten freirubbelte um Al-Qaida zu finanzieren...
Ein Glück, dass die EU dem entschlossen entgegen tritt. Ohne anonyme Zahlungsmöglichkeit wird bestimmt niemand mehr Geldflüsse verschleiern. Wie soll das auch gehen? Soll man das Geld vielleicht einfach an Briefkastenfirmen in Panama überweisen? Lächerlich! Bester Kommentar seit langem. Muss immernoch lachen (aber auch weinen). Das Schlimme ist, die Lemminge glauben das und finden das in Orndnung, denn sie haben ja nichts zu verbergen... Der Hintergrund dazu ist leider eher traurig: Lemming-Control in the Making - Der grossen Bösen werden dies verhönessen .. |
|
|
|
Oder ist Bargeld ausgenommen? Ein Schelm wer böses denkt...
An der Bargeldabschaffung wird schon fleissig gesägt. Schritt für Schritt. Für den Mod... hätte der Kurs bei solchen Nachtichten nicht fallen müssen?
Der Kurs müsste steigen, denn Bitcoin erfüllt formal alle Bedingungen (zentrale DB Blockchain), was aber aufgrund der nicht zugeordneten Adressen nicht zwingend ein klares Bild ergibt (siehe MtGox). Nuja, mit den exp. steigenden Tranaktionskosten wird das aber mit bitcoin auch nix werden. Wenn man dann wieder off-chain Basteleien drumherum bauen muss, ist die zentrale DB auch Geschichte. -> Es führt nix daran vorbei on-chain maximal zu skalieren. Oder wir werden wieder Banken / SWIFT / usw. für die Transaktionen brauchen. |
|
|
|
my gripe is blockstream loves taking softfork best case scenario and hardfork worst case.. but blockstream will slap down anyone that even suggests an opinion of softfork worst case scenario and hardfork best case.. even though people like cores/blockstreams main technical boss(CTO) will happily bilateral split the softfork. even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
i hate this because gmaxwell loves his monero and elements/liquid, aswell as his millions of fiat... not so much bitcoin. i feel gmaxwell doesnt care about bitcoins survival and has gone 'full wetard' into just treating bitcoin as 'an experiment' and testbed for things like hyperledger/elements. yet people are following gmaxwell, because of old outdated stuff he done before he got into the bankers pockets and changed motives. much like some people stick with the same doctor even if that doctor is now working for a profit making business rather than a national health service. and allowing bitcoin to change due to human emotion of trust of another human. without bothering to just read what code was wrote and what the actual codes does to the network. there is to much trust of human. and not much any care of reading understanding code or requsting the human to try a different type of code out of fear of being slapped by a human hand or offending a human. The BS Core marketing campain in combination with reddit/bitcoin style has fully brainwashed some neutral individuals with the psychological and political useful trick to spread real fear about any HF. I wonder how they could logically conclude that if SW is not enough for on-chain scaling there is need for a HF,... Later ? WTF ? So the earlyier we do a HF the better and thanx to ETH we are alerted and prepared - we do better! But how on earth can this be done safely now at all with this psych fear anchor thrown ? I m really curious what this 'later' agenda looks like if BS Core needs to remove this fear by magic and initiate a good HF? SW yourself! |
|
|
|
|
Pretty useless discussion to me w/o any big miner techy guy inside.
First thing : What is really important ?
If we could agree it's really scaling (otherwise I don't care) and we see the rest features all as 'nice to have' ->
SegWit (allone) is not really about scaling (even admitted by BS fan-teams), but enables (maybe...) off-chain-scaling = 'nice-to-have'
but for what price ? -> go ask miners first
And yes - core is most advanced and best team on earth. Delivery is SW - only for 1 Year - no plan B ? Why ? Agenda ? Commitment ? Do they really use bitcoin on a day to day base ?
|
|
|
|
stundenchart ist glaub ich unbrauchbar. und bitcoin.de erst recht. also als tool zur marktbeobachtung. So ist es, außerdem ist da doch wirklich nichts Los = kaum Volumen, deswegen kannst gleich den Chart vergessen ist reine Zeit Verschwendung  Zum Kurs: wenn der ETF- Coin genehmigt worden ist, dann sehe kurzfristig 1500 Mal checken https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630-1594698-132357.pdf |
|
|
|
There is no point in building a project that needs 100 of millions of users adopting it, when the underlying blockchain can't scale! Re: Are you a bagholder? Which altcoins do you hold?As for some of the shitcoins mentioned in this thread, clearly the speculators will buy any idealistic bullshit. The more idealistic nonsense it is, the more likely they will buy it. For example WeTrust is more idealistic bullshit without any realistic adoption case. As for both WeTrust and especially HumanIQ, there are all these new ICOs coming out for smart contracts running on Ethereum which want to target milllions and billions of users adoption. But Ethereum can't scale!Besides Ethereum can't scale. So anything built on Ethereum can't scale. Casper is fundamentally flawed and will never work.
Also putting large financial value into smart contracts has proven to be very insecure with the DAO attack. The more we proliferate these smart contracts, the more attack surface grows. In HumanIQ's case, the founder and leader Alex Forte apparently isn't even a programmer. IQ is rare and you cant fix stupid or fight against the massive ETH marketing all day. You get the honor to keep trying but humanity only will learn if its too late like we see in bitcoin these days. But bitcoin's store of value function seems not to need much scaling... ETH's only chance to scale is in forking infinity times or tending to be mostly central - LN style wise - hehe.  |
|
|
|
Its not. Its about to compare with SW max blocksize. So you can say 1.7 or 3.6 I dont care.
No, it will not. As far as computational resources go, SW 4 MB requires less than a 4 MB block size increase would. The increase with Segwit would also be gradual with adoption, which is what makes it better. I see. If this is the only viable point you can find in summing up miners costs and benefits we can aggree on any size here. Miners benefits for buying SW will not increase dramatically in this comparision. |
|
|
|
Stay on 1MB has no cost - inherent stability drives price higher - clear benefit.
Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
This is pure bullshit. 4 MB has a lot of cost, unless you want to blindly just increase limits hoping that nothing goes wrong. Somehow, somewhere people tend to forget: resource cost, decentralization and orphans. There is a reason for which Bitcoin has a low orphan rate, i.e. a special relay network. Its not. Its about to compare with SW max blocksize. So you can say 1.7 or 3.6 I dont care. |
|
|
|
|
Has anybody done or seen a strict costs and benfits analysis from a big miners view with respect to 'buy' SW or 'similar block size increase'?
I would put on this miner hat and write down on my project cost side thinks like
1. Prestudy:
Read and understand. How much lines of code are changed? - Time to read: high cost
Complexity: Time to understand also all dependencies - very high cost
Potential benefits compared to simple bs increase - poor
Side effects like loosing fees by easier enable 2nd layer tx solutions - negative
Benefits from other side features like malleability fix - dont care
Schnorr - dont care
2. Prototyping
Adjusting my private miner code. - medium cost
Smoke testing - medium cost
3.UAT candidate creation
High tuning the prototype and optimizing - high cost
UAT testing - high cost
4.signalling for productive go live ?
- Lots of cost there and even some negative benefit!
Stay on 1MB has no cost - inherent stability drives price higher - clear benefit.
Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
What would you do with you big miner hat on?
|
|
|
|
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.
Obvious and delusional shill account. The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.
Keep watching
It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions. After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes? I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.
No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.
The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage' , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.
Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him. The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too. *sigh* I really don't get what's wrong with you core diehards. Thats the chisma. If you think bitcoin is only store of value, nothing needs to be changed at all. Price is up. Fees are up, adoption for rich is up. If you think bitcoin is more than that (I am) you need to scale. Not sure if anybody can 'dictate' the direction, I think greed does it finally. Individuals are dammed to discuss (helps?) or analyse and watch. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
