According to BitcoinHistory, a hardfork occurred March 12, 2013.
And some of us watched -- fascinated -- as it unfolded in real time. |
|
|
|
Unlimited is a bit of a wildcard as it's designed to follow the network.
Close. But omits illustrative detail. BU block size limit is whatever the emergent consensus of the entire network is, configured by means of each user setting their own block size limit value. |
|
|
|
Is SegWit really just an ugly hack to accommodate LN? Is this true? Because nobody knows if anybody will use LN yet...
No. It fixes transaction malleability. Stupid. Which killed Mt Gox. ha. haha. Haha. HahaHa. HaHa HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ha. Are you saying you want more Mt Goxes? And dead puppies?
Oh - you had me going there for a bit. |
|
|
|
People need to do a bank run in every exchange (maybe even online wallets too) well before we reach the point of the hard fork, to ensure that they have control of their BTCs.
AlexGR raises an excellent point. If there is an upcoming contentious hardfork scheduled then the first things people are going to do is withdraw ALL their coins off the exchanges and out of any custodial services. To what end? Every coin that they withdraw before the fork ends up being one coin on each chain after the fork. If they leave one coin on the exchange, there is likely no existing contractual agreement that the exchange might grant them back one coin on chain A, while keeping the one coin on chain B for itself. |
|
|
|
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible.
No. Makes no sense whatsoever.
True, the choice of settlement platform is leveraged 10,000:1 in this scenario for the transacting party. As such, it probably does not much matter to the transaction party whether the underlying settlement platform is Bitcoin or a vastly cheaper alt.
However, to the payment provider -- the party who actually selects the underlying settlement platform -- that cost represents the bulk of the Cost Of Production. If any business can reduce their cost of production by a significant portion, you can be damned sure they are going to take that option.
The benefit to the party actually bearing the cost is huuuuuge.Edit: Sorry. Unintended duplicate. |
|
|
|
I apologize for the vitriol, but not for the underlying sentiment. Your opening salvo was clearly designed to create in the mind of those that do not know better that Bitcoin Classic was created merely as a tool to be used to wrest (in some yet to be revealed manner) control over cryptocurrecy by the banking establishment.
Yes. That is my theory in part. The banking establishment sees Classic as a more vulnerable target and/or an opportunity to divide. Walking it back. Duly noted. Was 'Bitcoin Classic was created by the banksters as a tool to kill crypto', now changed to an unverifiable speculation that 'banksters think they can subvert Bitcoin Classic trivially, while subverting Bitcoin Core presents an insurmountable obstacle'. I call bullshit. Again. Regardless, by encouraging division (which I've previously documented) they weaken the entire community.
Encouraging division? They? Who? The banksters? Care to point out where the banksters are sowing this discord? Let alone the obvious grey area as to who is the divided and who is the dividee. Core has been getting a clear signal for months that at least a non-negligible minority -- and perhaps a clear majority -- is not buying into their so-called scaling plan. It could be argued that it is Core that is the source of the discord. The bottom line is, Classic is an Altcoin and needs to be seen as such by the greater community. United bitcoin stands, divided it falls!
Umm Humm. Classic, which is planned as legacy with a changed value of one constant, is an altcoin, while Core, which is legacy plus RBF plus SegWit, plus... and totally changes the validity protocol, is not an altcoin. Do you even listen yo yourself? |
|
|
|
<<Sorry for the horkedattribution>>
Not at all. JorgeStolfi was saying that if you settle to the Bitcoin blockchain only 1/10000 of your tx then you might as well not do it at all and use a fiat LN system. I'm saying that at 1/10000 of your tx, the cost of using real Bitcoin (even with, hypothetically, expensive BTC transactions) would be so low there is no reason not to just stay with Bitcoin. I don't think people will want fiat LN.
Doesn't make much sense. While 1/10000 of the transaction represents only 0.01% of the customer's transaction cost, it represents 100% of the tranasaction aggregator's cost - and that is the party tasked with selecting the ultimate settlement network. |
|
|
|
What the heck does Bitcoin Classic have do with the banks' plans to copy blockchain technology???
Absolutely nothing. And MicroGuy knows it, too. Fucking liar lying to try to sway any who don't bother to think things through. Wrong. Private blockchains are like 1990's intranets. They're peanuts compared to Bitcoin which threatens the bank's financial monopoly. Stick your head in the sand and resort to name-calling if you wish. That won't wash away the current reality. I apologize for the vitriol, but not for the underlying sentiment. Your opening salvo was clearly designed to create in the mind of those that do not know better that Bitcoin Classic was created merely as a tool to be used to wrest (in some yet to be revealed manner) control over cryptocurrecy by the banking establishment. Which is, as anyone with a brain can tell, absolute twaddle. |
|
|
|
What the heck does Bitcoin Classic have do with the banks' plans to copy blockchain technology???
Absolutely nothing. And MicroGuy knows it, too. Fucking liar lying to try to sway any who don't bother to think things through. |
|
|
|
Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.
You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. What's this then? Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (and perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed.
~~ What you don't seem to grasp is how he was going to bypass hashpower with checkpoints. You really need to get up-to-speed with what he's saying in this clip. I think you might be the only user here that doesn't understand what Mike had planned? Here, try this one more time: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB9goUDBAR0~~ Bait & switch much? Try what one more time? He's laying out a scenario where two different communities has different ideas at what constitutes the valid chain. In no way does this achieve your stated scenario whereby Coinbase and perhaps Bitpay are enough to totally overturn consensus. |
|
|
|
Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face.
You should reread my post more carefully. I never said that. What's this then? Mike thought all he needed was banker-owned Coinbase (and perhaps Bitpay) to support his "bitcoin frankenstein" and the fork would proceed.
|
|
|
|
[Non-technical misrepresentation]
...
FTFY Which part is misrepresented exactly? I think everything I stated can documented.  Let us start with you defending the claim that his use of the term "economic consensus" is equivalent to "banks". Your claim that he thought coinbase and bitpay constituted enough hash power to trigger the XT fork is laughable on its face. Next, let s discuss your implied claim that he meant to do harm to miners. |
|
|
|
[Non-technical misrepresentation]
...
FTFY |
|
|
|
A surprisingly lucid article for mainstream press. |
|
|
|
That's no mic drop. A mic drop is a victorious action, taken only when your wordplay has been so devastatingly erudite that there is no possible way your opponent would embarrass himself by trying to follow it up. Mike's blog post is what is known colloquially as 'throwing in the towel'. |
|
|
|
the real reason we are at this price is because the federal govy pumped bitcoin using back channels so they could make a quick profit on the marshal's auction ..
You persist in saying this. Yet you have not offered your theory as to the mechanism by which the gov accomplished this pump, let alone provide any evidence thereof. |
|
|
|
It's just like the highway. You pay more for your own car, you go faster than the bus. You pay a cab, you go faster than the bus. If you want to go "economy", you keep your money and take the bus.
Well, no. It is not just like the highway. The difference is that when traffic increases to max safe capacity, additional lanes are constructed. |
|
|
|
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain.
I guess I misunderstood. I recently read that Core devs will still hashing out some aspects of how the code will be implemented. No? The code is in the testnet being tested. Might it be modified if a bug is found... sure... but it has already been completed and tested for many months last year in sidechains and now it is being tested in the main testnet. Hmm. Really? As in release candidate? I guess I need to source the impression I was given. I do recall that it was a convo on the dev reflector, though I cannot remember details other than that. |
|
|
|
Segwitt details are well understood, well documented , and with corresponding code and now is in the main testnet instead of just sidechain.
I guess I misunderstood. I recently read that Core devs will still hashing out some aspects of how the code will be implemented. No? |
|
|
|
So now there's Gavin and Jeff behind it, plus the current #1 and #5 of the mining pools. Will be interesting to see how F2Pool, Bitfury and BTCC Pool react in the coming days.
Certainly interesting ... whatever "it" is ... who knows?...Somewhat irresponsible for them to back something that isn't even formulated yet. How does that differ from the SegWit-based 'roadmap'? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
