Which one?
BIP100, BIP102 or BIP202?
 |
|
|
|
...and write accordingly. Out of curiosity, how do you picture yourself when you post?
 |
|
|
|
From my understanding, there is going to be an intentional wait until blocks are full before there will be any increase in capacity so the fee market can develop.
That was Blockstreams game plan from day one. Its why there was such vehement opposition to big blocks, despite it being a relatively minor change. Yet the latest proposals put forward by core will make unprecedented changes to the way bitcoin works, with the added 'bonus' of allowing bigger blocks ( and ...whisper... will finally allow LN/Elements to actually work!!) The only good thing in this debate is watching trolls like hdbuck and brg444 running around unsure of whether to sh*t or to fart and basically tear into one another. I'd get the popcorn out just for that.  |
|
|
|
 Did I miss anything? Has the scaling crap been resolved? Are we at 3200 yet? |
|
|
|
I find it difficult to comprehend ...
We know that. You should try reading more than 6 words at a time. Or has smallblockism extended into text as well? |
|
|
|
lol, but I mean it the VCs that were stupid enough to back this shit deserve everything that's coming.
Holy fucking shit it's a rasberry pi with a 3d printed case.
I assume there's something a little slicker in the works, or I hope so for their sake. Something that looks like that could be knocked up by a couple of hostile nerds in their high school lab in an afternoon or two The toaster idea looks almost rational beside this. almost |
|
|
|
It looks like this forum is dead. Reddit is also dead. Where did everyone go?
If the people havent profit... forum havent people Does this mean I'm mental? We all are.  |
|
|
|
I already implied that this is possible - but it is certainly not desitable. I don't see that in your post. You stated that " any transaction behaviour changes will require a hard-fork" and "LN is still in the fantasyware stage, requiring a hard fork in Bitcoin before they can even begin to implement it", hence my answer. Whether it's desirable from an engineering perspective is a different domain. Hard fork is not required (but may be desirable), that's what I wanted to say. And, given the strong preference for soft forks among the core devs, I consider it more likely to be a soft fork change. Its possible to soft fork it, but it would be very poor software practice to do so. I've only seen Greg speak about this once, and he seemed pretty resigned to the fact that bitcoin needs significant changes to transacion handling to support sidechain-like functionality. To do this as a sighash flag hack would be short sighted. But I still contend (and qualify), a well designed enabling of SC/LN-like functionality will require a hard fork. |
|
|
|
This thread has gone full retard. Constructive discussion has grinded to a halt. You guys are all like one another, Special Olympics.
I think if you read the thread title, the OP was setting the retard bar pretty low from the off. Anyone who tries to argue logically with that mentality is the one who is retarded. This thread was intended as a trollfest - dont spoil it for everyone. Don't pretend you're any better, though. This thread does contain a fair amount of discussion, in addition to trolling. I dont pretend anything. Make a decent point and I will try and respond in kind. Troll, and I will troll you back. |
|
|
|
LN is still in the fantasyware stage, requiring a hard fork in Bitcoin before they can even begin to implement it.
Hard fork? Why? What hard fork are you talking about anyway? LN is not the sole off-chain solution btw. Lookahere: www.stashcrypto.com Any transaction behaviour changes will require a hard-fork ( all nodes must upgrade to enforce change, as previously invalid tx'x will now be valid in the new version) For side chains or LN to ever become useful, they need to implement changes to transaction types (specifically around the sighashes) similar to what was done for P2SH - except that P2SH got around the hard fork requirement by simply re-purposing an existing OP. I dont think they will getaway with that for side chains. As far as I'm aware, new SIGHASH types don't necessarily require a hard fork, re-purposing an existing opcode can indeed work. https://github.com/scmorse/bitcoin-misc/blob/master/sighash_proposal.mdhttps://github.com/scmorse/bitcoin-misc/blob/master/sighash_proposal_v2.mdTwo key words from your reply: "Necessarily" and "Can". I already implied that this is possible - but it is certainly not desitable. I'm not aware of the IRC that stephen mentions, but are you saying that Greg supports this method of enabling LN-like functionality? From a software design perspective its not a good idea to hack the changes into sighash, when the better solution is to split out the CHECKSIG/CHECKMULTISIG OPs to new op codes that would obviate the need for new sighash flags. That way the transactions would be an integral part of the design, instead of a shoehorn into an existing design that was never intended to support them. Bear in mind also that convoluted multisigs with arrays of sighash flags will lead us back to the signature bloat that P2SH was trying to address. Sidechains/LN are important concepts for the future expansion of bitcoin, but introducing them via a kludge would mortgage their future stability and extensibility. |
|
|
|
LN is still in the fantasyware stage, requiring a hard fork in Bitcoin before they can even begin to implement it.
Hard fork? Why? What hard fork are you talking about anyway? LN is not the sole off-chain solution btw. Lookahere: www.stashcrypto.com Any transaction behaviour changes will require a hard-fork ( all nodes must upgrade to enforce change, as previously invalid tx'x will now be valid in the new version) For side chains or LN to ever become useful, they need to implement changes to transaction types (specifically around the sighashes) similar to what was done for P2SH - except that P2SH got around the hard fork requirement by simply re-purposing an existing OP. I dont think they will getaway with that for side chains. |
|
|
|
This thread has gone full retard. Constructive discussion has grinded to a halt. You guys are all like one another, Special Olympics.
I think if you read the thread title, the OP was setting the retard bar pretty low from the off. Anyone who tries to argue logically with that mentality is the one who is retarded. This thread was intended as a trollfest - dont spoil it for everyone. |
|
|
|
fuck off with your monero alt coin.
this has got to be the mpfaggiest thread in the known universe.
There goes LambChop's cheerleader again... he doesn't need you buddy. That persecution complex of yours is starting to become acute. Maybe you should see a doctor. I'm sure there is a horse suppository he could prescribe... “Many [of the core devs are] interested or at least willing to accept a ‘short term bump,’ a hard fork to modify block size limit regime to be cost-based via ‘net-utxo’ rather than a simple static hard limit. 2-4-8 and 17%/year were debated and seemed ‘in range’ with what might work as a short term bump – net after applying the new cost metric.” |
|
|
|
Lie? Guess you've never heard of "supply creates its own demand". What if... you know... Fidelity switches that flip? Of course being an intelligent person you recognize this but given that you are also a paid shill you wouldn't want people to think about this heh  You have posted ~60 times in the last 24 hours alone. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a 'paid' shill? Forget fidelity - its a non issue. Anyway, how will the block size limit help? LN is still in the fantasyware stage, requiring a hard fork in Bitcoin before they can even begin to implement it. So, lets drop the shit scary-scary tactics. |
|
|
|
Again, you used to at least be funny. Now you're straight up sad.  BIP100 & BIP101 are the only proposal who bothered with the voting nonsense. Others know better and realize that miners opinion on the matter is worthless as their incentives are not aligned with Bitcoin users. In short, any form of scaling to be implemented will not resort to pseudo-democracy but consensus. Therefore, BIP100 dies and so does 8MB. In fact one can argue they are both dead as we speak. Until then, all current blocks are BIP000 and you shouldn't expect this to change soon I think you are hearing voices in your head - your persecution complex is playing tricks on you. So "miner incentives are not aligned with users" is your latest mantra? Well, I have news for you - they never were, and they never will be. Its a complete irrelevance. However, as miners are such an important part of the bitcoin ecosphere, then their opinion is important. Just because they dont agree with your small block world view does not mean you can ignore a huge proportion of the players. Miners know that they can get more fee's from more transactions. Everybody knows it will get better with more transactions.Except you. You just want it to be a convenient storage vessel for your little bag of gold - but you want to come back in 10 years to see they have magically increased in value due to....math. Except.. you know... the nodes. Ah - the one about "If we raise the limit to 8mb, then blocks will automatically become 8mb OVERNIGHT!!" Dear god, wont someone think of the children blockchain!! If that is the lie you choose to believe, then knock yourself out. Most intelligent people realise that blocks will grow in proportion to transaction volume. |
|
|
|
Again, you used to at least be funny. Now you're straight up sad. BIP100 & BIP101 are the only proposal who bothered with the voting nonsense. Others know better and realize that miners opinion on the matter is worthless as their incentives are not aligned with Bitcoin users. In short, any form of scaling to be implemented will not resort to pseudo-democracy but consensus. Therefore, BIP100 dies and so does 8MB. In fact one can argue they are both dead as we speak. Until then, all current blocks are BIP000 and you shouldn't expect this to change soon I think you are hearing voices in your head - your persecution complex is playing tricks on you. So "miner incentives are not aligned with users" is your latest mantra? Well, I have news for you - they never were, and they never will be. Its a complete irrelevance. However, as miners are such an important part of the bitcoin ecosphere, then their opinion is important. Just because they dont agree with your small block world view does not mean you can ignore a huge proportion of the players. Miners know that they can get more fee's from more transactions. Everybody knows it will get better with more transactions. Except you. You just want it to be a convenient storage vessel for your little bag of gold - but you want to come back in 10 years to see they have magically increased in value due to....math. |
|
|
|
Do you know what the word 'propensity' means?
Here, I'll use it in a sentence:
Im Hurtin', Momma.
I feel terrible - you sound genuinely hurt and sad. Are we finally getting to you? Is the appalling vista of upcoming larger blocks finally dawning upon you? Your arguments are getting more flaky and desperate by the day. I think you will have to extend you criminal dDos attacks to the whole bitcoin network soon as you start to deal with your sadness through anger. ps. I was joking about feeling terrible. So you feel sad? Good. Your social engineering attacks may (for ADHD-limited times) be effective against Redditards, but they have no power here. But please keep up the ugly displays of poor sportsmanship, because hearing such distraught lamentations wafting over the XT's rekt corpse is what's best in life.  Please continue to share your pain through the medium of your posts. Its wonderful to witness it. |
|
|
|
XT's "great victory" only resulted in the functional ascendency of BIP000. The blocksize debate is just as, if not more, deadlocked than before the XT fiasco. That stalemate is EXACTLY the outcome Team 1MB wanted (TYVM!). We Core defenders stuck XT's ludicrous plans in the deep freeze, just like Israel did with Dubya's Roadmap to Peace. There, there. Try not to be such a poor sport about it. Ha HA!! MPfaggery such as this might wash at whatever right wing circle jerk you hang out in, but most observers will see your original position being eroded away, not by a rejection of larger blocks, but with a range of large block alternatives being put on the table. Its not about large versus small blocks, but simply HOW LARGE DO WE GO??? See what we did there? Your rectum must be positively glowing red now... This BIP000 nonsense is just the bottom of your very empty barrel of ideas. I asked you to not be such a poor sport about winding up on the losing side of the Great (albeit abortive) Schism. But there you are, projecting your epic butthurt onto us triumphant defenders of Core. I guess hoping you could be a good sport was expecting too much from you. Do you know what the word 'propensity' means? Here, I'll use it in a sentence: [ Classic MPfag Malapropism here...]I feel terrible - you sound genuinely hurt and sad. Are we finally getting to you? Is the appalling vista of upcoming larger blocks finally dawning upon you? Your arguments are getting more flaky and desperate by the day. I think you will have to extend you criminal dDos attacks to the whole bitcoin network soon as you start to deal with your sadness through anger. ps. I was joking about feeling terrible. So you feel sad? Good. |
|
|
|
Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?
ROFL!! Aw, dude, you're killing me. Just when I thought you couldnt get more retarded you spring this one on me!! You still think this whole system is just a big pot of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere, don't you? That magical wealth has been created by .... Math? Yes. Mathematically enforced scarcity. Surely you didn't think people are holding onto Bitcoin because of its 7tps 10 min confirmation time payment system....? the scarcity is enforced by maths??? Jesus, you have no idea how it works, do you? The scarcity is a line of code which could be changed in a heartbeat. Only the security is enforced by "math". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
