If a few BU blocks can cause it to dump that much in a matter of minutes...
WTF are you talking about? BU blocks have been being mined for months. Running pretty much neck & neck with segwit, even. |
|
|
|
...
I'm just representing what most BU proponents think. I get that you don't agree. You're not gonna change our minds, and we're not gonna change yours. But we're not just going to cede the entire conversation space to core-ians' lies about our motivations and conclusions. |
|
|
|
BU is garbage, only a fucking idiot thinks it's a good idea.
I think BU is a good idea. I realize you don't know me from adam, but I assure you, I am not a fucking idiot. Certainly the evidence of my position in life disproves the assertion. Mr. "I'm gonna defraud a million bucks from daddy under false pretenses" (bystanders might ask Dafar what I refer to here) I note you make no argument -- only sling shit -- in your screed. Oh look - new material edited. OK - amongst the ad-homs you do say one thing at least defensible: BU may never achieve critical mass. As neither has done Classic or others... ...As neither has done The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. |
|
|
|
waaah. waaah. waaaaaaa!
"block natural open source development with political shennigans" ? Really? How does one block open source development? idonothtinkthatwordmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.png "they are simply saying it can't done like that" Done like what? A simple max block size increase? Really? |
|
|
|
|
::sigh::
Most BU proponents have grown weary of rehashing the same discussion over and over. So they have ceded to quietly running BU, in anticipation of greater adoption, and the ultimate realization by the bulk of the Bitcoin network that Bitcoiners as a whole can be trusted with setting the max block size.
Some things most BU advocates believe:
- the biggest threat to Bitcoin is an artificially imposed limit on transaction throughput (approx 250,000/day)
- Bitcoin's current network effect dominance is not necessarily immune from encroachment by another crypto that offers more utility
- the users are the proper people to determine maxblocksize (as opposed to a centrally planned coding construct)
- transaction malleability is a problem worth solving - all other things being equal
- The SegWit Omnibus Changeset does deliver a moderate one-time effective block size increase
- the block size increase within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is too little, too late
- the block size increase within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is completely dependent upon the proportion of transactions that employ the SegWit format
- the malleability fix simplifies creation of the Lightning Network
- the Lightning Network does not currently have a design for decentralized route discovery
- The Lightning Network has inherent incentives that will be pressure to tendency to a hub-and-spoke (centralizing) topology
|
|
|
|
I think this vector needs to be closed down with an automated algorithmic increase of some sort that will eliminate disagreements that can be used for social-engineering a fork.
If core hadn't been so obstinate in rebuffing community demands, BU probably never would have been implemented. Don't expect them to change course now. Even with the obvious state of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset never reaching the 95% activation level. |
|
|
|
We all know that there is exchange variation, but did you see that low dip on GDAX.... WOW!!!!
All the way down to $1050. It could have been possible to make some good dinero on that situation.
Yup - I hit 6 buys on the way down while I was sleeping. By the time I checked in, the price was already back up @$1226.35. For once, the fact that a wasn't monitoring closely netted me some extra profits from selling 4 of those 6 back*. Sold another at my expected level shortly thereafter. *Of course, I dutifully reentered buy orders at profitable points for each. |
|
|
|
no man not kidding,
The word "Slut" washes off ME like water because it is gender specific in my opinion.
but I can see where the OP was taken aback again because it is gender specific.
Is there no other description other than words like Whore and Slut to use?
"There is a price you will pay for prostituting out your personage" like a common signature slut.
Right. the word 'slut' is not gender-specific. That point should be driven home given the context. No - the words 'whore' and 'slut' are perfectly applicable to anyone who would compromise their integrity for money. You might want to get down off that white goat before it becomes obvious your silver armor is merely tinfoil. |
|
|
|
Or scale to Visa-level tpd throughput?
As adoption requires, yes. Never going to happen on-chain with Bitcoin, no matter what the block size limit is set to. Anyone selling that vision is selling pure snakeoil.
Given the timescale over which adoption may possibly grow, you are wrong. And I have grown bored with this conversation. No you are wrong. Grow bored all you want (or stick your head back in the sand). But their are TECHNICAL LIMITATIONS to how the Bitcoin network is designed/architected, that PREVENT Visa-level transaction-per-second processing (4,000/sec). No wishing for a 2 MB limit increase will even come close to achieving that. Now I'm bored...sigh Yep, I've got more processing power in my pocket then all of NASA had when they put a man on the moon. <s>But hey - technology will never advance to allow anyone who wants to make a transaction on-chain whenever they want</s>. Yes, it gets boring. So I'll just go back to operating my BU node, thereby signaling my preference for larger blocks (currently EB 2MB, AD4). You? |
|
|
|
There is a price you will pay for whoring out your personage like a common signature slut.
What do you mean by that I mean that nothing in life is free. If you are getting paid to post, you have an incentive to blather endlessly on topics about which you know nothing. This forum is infested with signature sluts who create post after post after post of meaningless drivel. Because of this, a paid sig is a signal to the rest of us that your post is not worth reading. So we don't. but the word "slut" doesn't help particularly when applied to a female! Are you kidding? In what way do you think "signature slut" is gender specific? It clearly applies to any person of any gender that would whore out the integrity of their word by shilling for sketchy 'businesses' they know nothing about. |
|
|
|
The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability)
Yes it does. But this malleability bug is inconsequential. It has known workarounds. It affects almost nobody. OTOH, the fact that no more than ~250,000 transactions can be processed in a day negatively affects everyone who wants to make a transaction, every time they attempt to do so. So the desire is instantaneous transactions? Not necessarily. Predictable transactions. Or scale to Visa-level tpd throughput?
As adoption requires, yes. Never going to happen on-chain with Bitcoin, no matter what the block size limit is set to. Anyone selling that vision is selling pure snakeoil.
Given the timescale over which adoption may possibly grow, you are wrong. And I have grown bored with this conversation. |
|
|
|
The current code has a true "bug" (i.e., transaction malleability)
Yes it does. But this malleability bug is inconsequential. It has known workarounds. It affects almost nobody. OTOH, the fact that no more than ~250,000 transactions can be processed in a day negatively affects everyone who wants to make a transaction, every time they attempt to do so. |
|
|
|
it think nash's ideal money is based on bitcoin as a premise.
So: a) based on bitcoin as a premise; or b) based on something that bitcoin seems to resemble pretty closely as a premise? |
|
|
|
No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?
What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described? That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate? Give me ONE example. OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin. For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap. Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status. What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services. What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality. So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"? Just to be clear, you think nash was talking about lite coin? No. Just to be clear, you think Nash is the person who devised, coded, and released to the world Bitcoin? And even if so, might the above scenario belie a flaw in his masterstroke? |
|
|
|
No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'?
What are the other fucking possibilities that take the power from central banking like nash described? That are international e-currencies with a stable supply with a halving inflation rate? Give me ONE example. OK... just for the sake of argument... Litecoin. For all essential aspects, Litecoin is a virtual clone of Bitcoin. The only thing differentiating Bitcoin from Litecoin, as viewed as the "other alternative" is the relative 100:1 ratio of market cap. Granted, that is a significant difference from the aspect of the "other alternative". However, even Bitcoin is still a sideshow on the world stage. What if adoption in the coming years is driven to Litecoin rather than Bitcoin? Then Litecoin would end up the economic juggernaut, and Bitcoin would be relegated to junior status. What might lead to mass adoption of Litecoin over Bitcoin? If Litecoin were to have increased utility to its user base, that is something that might lead to this eventuality. If something increases in value, it is a more compelling investment to the individual that some other thing which does not. And individuals are the decision-makers who allocate their resources to products and services. What might lead Litecoin to have increased value with respect to Bitcoin to each individual stakeholder? I might posit that Litecoin adopting higher tps capability while Bitcoin does not might be such an eventuality. So if such were to come about, and Bitcoin's market dominance be shunted to the side by Litecoin, why would Bitcoin's properties matter in terms of being the "other alternative"? |
|
|
|
What panic? No sudden moves showing on coinmarketcap. |
|
|
|
I question whether any evidence has been presented that supports assertion number two. And of course if (2) ends up being false, the parentheticals in (4) and (5) would need removal.
get fucked. No. What evidence has been provided that 'Bitcoin is the 'other alternative'? |
|
|
|
Back on page 30 or so a pretty good summary was developed: So, if bitcoin maintains current gold like properties,
including not increasing the TPS whether on-chain or off-chains, then:
(1) bitcoin will increase in value [by design].
(2) bitcoin is the "other alternative" due to its increase in value [all other currencies decrease in value by design].
(3) bitcoin cannot be the "ideal money".
(4) "other alternatives" [=Bitcoin] existence is to force fiat to compete in value.
(5) "other alternative" [=Bitcoin] ushers in the "ideal money".
(6) "Ideal money" is the end result of the competition [and it will NOT be Bitcoin]. I agree that this seems a pretty good summary of the thread. I question whether any evidence has been presented that supports assertion number two. And of course if (2) ends up being false, the parentheticals in (4) and (5) would need removal. |
|
|
|
Acutally if a hostile fork happens then almost the whole network will reject the invalid blocks
They could fuck up bitcoin really bad.
If almost the whole network rejects these blocks, then in what way will it 'fuck up bitcoin really bad'? |
|
|
|
Actually its a bit hard for me to understand how someone who has invested millions in hardware can risk that by running untested stoftware coded by some hobby programmers...
They're not. They're running BU. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
