-snip-
Take a look at the most recent blocks found and their size. If any of the BS you rant about had merit there would be countless people complaining about stuck transactions, the price would be crashing, and people would be screaming from the rooftops. But they're not, are they?
-snip-
 Well, if they're anywhere near 10min blocks... they're pretty well full. If miners thought they would risk orphaning because of size and validation time, they would be smaller. It's "fine" if you want to block small legit transactions to steer them into other providers and solutions, but at least admit it, and sign a statement clearly stating this is the direction of Core. This is going to be a change to the steady state economic operation of Bitcoin since the genesis block. |
|
|
|
Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.
-snip-
Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.
The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.
How does segwit fit with this critical infrastructure stasis analogy? Where garzik's plan does not.  I agree that most of the network didn't want to jump into the arms of a benevolently dictatorial Hearn, but that does not preclude future possibility of hard forking from the previously dominant implementation's centrally planned capacity policy. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.
People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK. The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it. The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial". Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today. How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know. I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind. 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. |
|
|
|
-snip-
The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.
People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK. The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it. The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial". |
|
|
|
Nobody has responded to the most relevant part: Previous periods of full blocks didn't have as many people who NEEDED not just wanted the network to work. The more people who NEED it to work, the more vulnerable it is to a spam attack. The blocksize limit is an effective way to not just keep bitcoin small, but to keep it unimportant. People who NEED it to work will bump their fees. It's not a killer, it's a crippler. A destroyer of potential. |
|
|
|
When blocks are full, anyone will be able to shut it down for an hour for $100,000. It will be slow for many hours after that. That's your idea of security?
What's 100 grand to stop a six billion dollar network? You just gave the banksters a kill switch.
Please show us where, among the numerous previous periods of full blocks, the network was 'stopped'. It never happened. End of story. Edit: Also, what does 'shut it down for half an hour' have to do with 'security'? When, during this fabricated scenario of yours, did people's coins get stolen from their wallets, or people magically have funds appear in their accounts? Is it a security issue when my bankcard doesn't work at a debit machine because the retailer's internet is out? BJA, hitting the limit isn't an apocalypse. Think of it as a stuck brake caliper. It limits potential, but is not fatal, at least not while first mover advantage is still so strong. As long as people are salivating about the halving... getting much harder to mine... more good press... MMM still a rollin'... this thing could run well further than you expect. Locking in some profits is never a bad thing, it's a comfort to have some dry powder, and a joy to sell into euphoria. True permabulls don't have a dime to buy panics, they're already all in. I'm pretty sure we'll see sub 440 again, and if not, great... that's what cold storage is for. Look... I share your frustration with the current dev environment, their crooked incentives, and their merry band of sycophants, but there's no need to throw yourself on the tracks in a show of bravery. If they want to pay you more, might as well take it. I also don't think that the situation is doomed, miners have the incentive and the power to protect their investment by ditching Core™ if the pain becomes pronounced and a reliable alternative presents itself. Bitcoin was designed to route around attempts to control it, let's see if that's true. I just had a stuck caliper. It set my truck on fire. Well, given enough time, that's going to happen. Especially when you don't have the periodic table on your side.  |
|
|
|
When blocks are full, anyone will be able to shut it down for an hour for $100,000. It will be slow for many hours after that. That's your idea of security?
What's 100 grand to stop a six billion dollar network? You just gave the banksters a kill switch.
Please show us where, among the numerous previous periods of full blocks, the network was 'stopped'. It never happened. End of story. Edit: Also, what does 'shut it down for half an hour' have to do with 'security'? When, during this fabricated scenario of yours, did people's coins get stolen from their wallets, or people magically have funds appear in their accounts? Is it a security issue when my bankcard doesn't work at a debit machine because the retailer's internet is out? BJA, hitting the limit isn't an apocalypse. Think of it as a stuck brake caliper. It limits potential, but is not fatal, at least not while first mover advantage is still so strong. As long as people are salivating about the halving... getting much harder to mine... more good press... MMM still a rollin'... this thing could run well further than you expect. Locking in some profits is never a bad thing, it's a comfort to have some dry powder, and a joy to sell into euphoria. True permabulls don't have a dime to buy panics, they're already all in. I'm pretty sure we'll see sub 440 again, and if not, great... that's what cold storage is for. Look... I share your frustration with the current dev environment, their crooked incentives, and their merry band of sycophants, but there's no need to throw yourself on the tracks in a show of bravery. If they want to pay you more, might as well take it. I also don't think that the situation is doomed, miners have the incentive and the power to protect their investment by ditching Core™ if the pain becomes pronounced and a reliable alternative presents itself. Bitcoin was designed to route around attempts to control it, let's see if that's true. |
|
|
|
Do traders provide some benefit to the system? (no just BTC traders, but traders in general) or they are just plain parasites?. It would be nice to listen at least some protraders opinion if it even exists.
A priori they look as pure parasites, but somehow a prioris use to be wrong.
Interesting debate while price go sideways
Having traders aka. "the market" discover what something is worth is the alternative to setting prices via central committee. BJA used to talk about this when he was calling btc traders "decentral bankers". Their job is to buy when they feel like the thing is undervalued and sell when it is overvalued, providing liquidity. The ones who are better at this end up with greater means to influence the price. So much for theory. In reality we have things like insider trading, government interventions and price manipulation by cartels going on. Claiming traders don't bring any value to the table seems incredibly myopic. They are helping to set the price of things in a decentralized way which would presumably seem useless only to someone who would prefer to set prices of things through central committees and whatnot. You're all talking about the invisible hand. Which not a bad thing in itself. You mean traders are the way for market to regulate itself, which not wrong. Now think it the other way around, what does happen when a market is ONLY about self-regularization? I have nothing against the fact that traders gives the value of things, when they ACTUALLY buy and sell things. But they don't, they just bet on rise or loss. Not even 1% of exchange are real, they're not "value conquistadores", they're just plain parasites because they don't have to use real things to bet on. Decentralization is good when you talk about real products. When one will really buy 1ton of corn at a price and sell it back at another price. When you exchange 10000 times the amount of good produced in the world, you don't set the value of anything, you just create "value" from thin air.  |
|
|
|
Do traders provide some benefit to the system? (no just BTC traders, but traders in general) or they are just plain parasites?. It would be nice to listen at least some protraders opinion if it even exists.
A priori they look as pure parasites, but somehow a prioris use to be wrong.
Interesting debate while price go sideways
Hint... it's called price discovery, and it's occasionally useful. Would you rather they used your money to figure it out? That can be arranged. |
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen, I realize we've flat lined here, but please... my asks are quite reasonable, and they're not fake.
Edit: Filled, thank you. Took some of the edge off.
|
|
|
|
Things have changed 'round here.  |
|
|
|
If there's one thing that isn't "core" to bitcoin, it's lightning.
There are many parts that are in the code for bitcoind that shouldn't be there. Most notably the wallet but other parts too. If a true, proper bitcoin core were written, a lot of this nonsense would sort itself out as obvious. Unfortunately, Satoshi failed to implement proper code separation and a lot of the problems that we see extend from that.
(Not that core shouldn't provide a wallet but it should be a separate piece of software)
Right, not to say that LN can't be a very complementary protocol to Bitcoin, but designing Bitcoin for Lightning... is somewhat backwards in terms of priorities. |
|
|
|
wait im sorry but what is the satire and what does this mean lol Don't worry friend, people much smarter than you have it figured out. Cypherpunks write code. |
|
|
|
The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength. Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.  Does Gavin have this power?? Yes, he always had it, and he isn't using it. Well, shouldn't OP know this? He definitely doesn't know everything and he often makes mistakes too. I've met him more than once, so I'm pretty sure I'm right about this. Who? brg444? or gavin? Was it in Virginia?  |
|
|
|
You know that sentiment has reached adequately negative levels when people think that crypto is done, over some mining issue
It's not a mining issue. Err, it is, in the sense that they are unwilling to exercise their influence against a team that has formed to eat their lunch. This is not a crisis that ends in a flash of red fireworks, it is a long, slow, bleeeeeed. The scramble for pre-halving coins may even disguise it for most of next year. |
|
|
|
Damn, Core really did pull a rabbit out their hat  How do they do it? Incredible.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
