3K bidwall on BFX
EDIT: Aaaand it's gone.
lasted less than 1 minute, and someone sold 800 bitcoin to that wall. What do you think about this kind of trick ? Looks like it backfired. Someone trying to push the price up or hold it up in a futile effort to keep the 1 HR moving average green. Nobody's buying my coins retail. I have to keep lowering my premium and they still don't move. You are a fucking liar in this post. You had plenty opportunity to sell your coins in the upper $420s in the past 12 hours or so, if you really wanted to sell your coins, and if you have any to sell. The only reason you wouldn't be able to sell you coins is that you would have been attempting to sell them at a 1% or more above retail, and farting around with your price, as to never get them to sell. So, yes, sincerity is important, when you are spinning such bullshit... regarding supposedly what you have been attempting to accomplish, but supposedly unable to accomplish. You were much more pleasant when you harbored the shame and guilt of losing half the money you plowed into BTC. Now that you're only down 17% or so... you've become fairly arrogant. I'm increasingly unsure if I can celebrate your break-even party with as much vigor as I originally intended...  |
|
|
|
Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.
Did you gather any opinions from miners asking them how they feel about creeping towards 1.75 MB equivalent sometime in 2017 with a soft fork that leaves all non-latest-Core-software nodes not validating transactions? The 75% increase is immediate once the code is implemented. Third-party software a free to enjoy additional headroom by adapting their code. April 2016 you said somewhere else? Also, you will be functionally knocking off quite a few nodes from actually being nodes. Only 2000 of the 5500 nodes are running the latest Core release. |
|
|
|
Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.
Did you gather any opinions from miners asking them how they feel about creeping towards 1.75 MB equivalent sometime in 2017 with a soft fork that leaves all non-latest-Core-software nodes not validating transactions? |
|
|
|
-snip-
For now, the consensus emerging from the economic majority is that the 1MB limit won't move.
You're free to discuss pipedreams scenarios but they're just that, delusions, and nothing that reflects current reality.
You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.
 |
|
|
|
So first, it's USGavincoin offering a heretical increase to a spam attack limit set several years ago. Now, it's blockstream core power rangers attempting heresy by separating signatures from blocks... Will you be joining in the fun of dumping your Bitcoin for Mircea Coin Classic when the moment arises hdbuck? When he uses the word muppets, do you think you are in or out of that categorization? I'll await your copy and paste reply.  |
|
|
|
In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks
I guess you only need to construct such a specific block that takes forever to verify, not necessary a valid mined block, no hash power is needed An economically rational miner wouldn't sit there trying to validate an invalid block forever... they won't stay a miner for long. They'll set their own limits and seek the longest chain of valid POW. They already mine short coinbase only blocks simply due to fear of orphan risk. If you look at the coinwallet.eu September attack, they did not do anything, just give out coins that stored in millions of dust addresses, and people automatically come to construct special transactions to claim those coins. This is similar to throwing out millions of $20 notes from the top of Empire State Building, it will immediately jam the traffic of Manhattan. How do you prevent people from claiming those notes? In fact F2pool is the one who claimed a mass of those coins and get a block took 30 seconds to verify F2Pool did that block to clean it up. I guess there is always the obscurity option for attack resilience. |
|
|
|
In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks
I guess you only need to construct such a specific block that takes forever to verify, not necessary a valid mined block, no hash power is needed An economically rational miner wouldn't sit there trying to validate an invalid block forever... they won't stay a miner for long. They'll set their own limits and seek the longest chain of valid POW. They already mine short coinbase only blocks simply due to fear of orphan risk. |
|
|
|
And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all
This makes no sense. The current limit basically provides a lower bar for the nefarious banking institution organizing the attack. The attacker has less room to fill to effectively price out all other transactions. It makes the attack cheaper. I have heard arguments that the limit should be used to "foster the growth of a fee market" which really means raising tx prices via an artificial, centrally planned, capacity limit. Miners, the producers of new block space, should determine the optimum size blocks to create while accounting for orphan risk and the health of the entire network. Harm the network and they harm their future earning potential. Create a huge block that takes forever to verify, be prepared to be orphaned by a chain of smaller blocks. max-block-size, if necessary at all, should be a circuit breaker or malicious miner protection only. Not an economic policy tool. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, they should be allowed to work. Attacks being cheaper or expensive means nothing for malicious large institutions, but if they are unable to stop the normal function of bitcoin network, then the attack is just wasted resource. A large block gives attacker such possibility to stop the traffic of all nodes because all they need to do is sending out large blocks that takes forever to verify (You don't know how long to verify a block unless you have already verified it), and if they control some super nodes that can quickly verify such kind of blocks, that will give them more chance to orphan the rest of the network since no one is able to keep up with their verifying speed Of course this special kind of dust sweeping block can be prevented at nodes level, but currently there is no fix yet as I know. And when you start to police on what kind of transaction is illicit then you really start to act like a government organization  In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks. If that's the case... we've got bigger problems than block size, and they could do much more destructive things than just a big block attack. A simpler, and cheaper attack would just be to waste some btc on fees to completely fill 1MB blocks, pricing out everyone else... The only security against nation states with hundreds of billions of $ at their disposal is either through obscurity (monero) or through ubiquity (too big and important to attack). |
|
|
|
Well, I wasn't really talking about a event where the existing users would flood the system with transactions. I thought of a event where a lot of people would become interested in Bitcoin/join it. However, the example linked also applies. Even though that is a concern it is not worth risking the whole system over it. I do wonder though why the Core developers don't bump to 2 MB; if we consider all the research done so far I don't think it would have any harmful effects that (too) big blocks might have. I absolutely share your thoughts here. It would have given some breathing room and some very helpful data to plan for the future. It also would have largely ended the bitter division that the community is suffering. |
|
|
|
One of the famous false prophecy of Karl Marx is that the free market mechanism would be lead to the monopoly of few corporations (thanks to economy of scale) that would end up controling the world production.
In other world, he tought unconstrained competition would allow for large entities to capture the economy.
This is already realized in many countries, a few large enterprises controlled the production of almost everything in a country. And the best example is the fiat money creation, totally dominated by a few reserve banks, while from the beginning any kind of private currency is allowed to circulate And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all This makes no sense. The current limit basically provides a lower bar for the nefarious banking institution organizing the attack. The attacker has less room to fill to effectively price out all other transactions. It makes the attack cheaper. I have heard arguments that the limit should be used to "foster the growth of a fee market" which really means raising tx prices via an artificial, centrally planned, capacity limit. Miners, the producers of new block space, should determine the optimum size blocks to create while accounting for orphan risk and the health of the entire network. Harm the network and they harm their future earning potential. Create a huge block that takes forever to verify, be prepared to be orphaned by a chain of smaller blocks. max-block-size, if necessary at all, should be a circuit breaker or malicious miner protection only. Not an economic policy tool. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, they should be allowed to work. |
|
|
|
that's some hard evidence to expect an imminent price rise of comparable scale. 2014 would like to have a word with you... Next gen chips have been designed, fabbed, assembled into miners, and now they're being deployed. |
|
|
|
See comment from bitcoin.org owner above. Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech. You bedwetters need to cry about something else. It's shameful, myopic, and regressive... and totally within their rights. |
|
|
|
-snip-
ps: i dont give a heck about core which is more of a debased codebase anyway, may they phr0k you noobs *softly*
-snip-
Do you know what happens if miners start using Blockstream segwit, and you don't use their latest debased codebase...? |
|
|
|
...
considering bitcoin's network effect and decentralization, it is simply too late to highjack it.
Indeed, the protocol being subject to design change would go against the very concept of a decentralized technology and would irrevocably introduce a point of failure precedent. This is not FED nor ECB meme, to hell with "adjustments" and "quantitative easing". You two seem to have it all figured out. A passion for decentralization even led both of you to join the forum around the same time. 3 might be a coincidence, but I think we have a trend here. Hearn Cypherdoc and his pussy posse Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation DeathAndTaxes Roger Ver JStolfi Lambie I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  Ah, poor forker brg444. When you run out of ideas, just play the ad hominem card... I might have to agree with you here. Referring to anyone as "JStolfi" -- even JStolfi himself -- just seems like too dirty of an insult. |
|
|
|
Keep faith bitcoiners. Coinbase is actually making something happens regarding the endless scaling controversy.
The power of totalitarian and economics illeterate nerds over Bitcoin is coming to an end ("but... but we have a roadmap" lol).
yes, maybe its the right step, nevertheless......... lol coinbase corporatist cheerleaders gettin all wet and sassy before their overlord brian armstrong from goldman sachs to ph0rk bitcoin and (hopefully) put an end to his useless cash burning regulated service. bitpay you are next!  Hi Grover Dill, Are you going to end up a ph0rk of a ph0rk when Blockstream removes signatures from blocks? Kind Regards, |
|
|
|
-snip-
All that good momentum wasted by Coinbase XTards...
Well, we know it couldn't have been this...
IMO the buying action is not representative of individual purchases, even from an organized scheme.
I see you don't know who is Mavrodi. In 1990s he brought up ponzi scheme in russia with funding half of country budget. I do know who the guy is. What I'm saying is if we are to believe that individuals are participating in his ponzi by funding their "account" using Bitcoin purchased from BTC exchanges this, IMO, does not correspond to the action we are seeing on Huobi & OKCoin where seemingly numerous buying bots are involved. Unless we are suggesting Mavrodi is purposedly gaming the Bitcoin market while running the ponzi in question it seems to me there is more to the story and the volume we are seeing in China. Those XTards sure have a lot of coin to dump. (in china) |
|
|
|
|
Marshall was credible enough to be featured prominently at both of Blockstream's Scaling Bitcoin conferences.
I wonder if his travel was comped.
|
|
|
|
back over 3000 that bull though  shorters get #rekt
 Thanks Obama Blockstream! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
