Hi, we just launched a FORK EXTRACTION WEBSITE. WE ALSO TRADE YOUR NEW COINS AND SEND YOU BITCOIN DIRECTLY.
10% (+1.5%) for your private keys! YES PLEASE! He probably thinks "anyone dumb enough to fall for this deserves it". I'm almost inclined to agree... I reported him but I'm not 100% sure about this one. I wonder if I will lose my 100% reporting accuracy. I probably wouldn't have done it if he wasn't a newbie but that just pushed it over the edge. |
|
|
|
So really all I know is that they intended to "scale" by increasing the blocksize. ... Has anything changed? Are they proposing realistic alternatives to lightning for scaling? Are there new developments that I should be aware of?
0 confirmation transactions. No, seriously - that's the amazing and innovative feature bcash has implemented to try to compete with lightning. What, did they get some sort of commitment from a federation of miners/pools that when they receive conflicting transactions in their mempool they will mine the one they encountered first rather than the one with the larger fee? That could be done with like 2 lines of code. If it's more interesting than that than I will go do some research. |
|
|
|
Well, the way I see it, Lightning was two years too late. And it will be three or four years too late before it makes an appreciable difference. In professional engineering, one always does the best bang for the buck before engaging more resource intensive, longer, more complex solutions. Simple blocksize increase first.
Yea well maybe if that had been the rhetoric of the big blockers at the time there wouldn't have developed this schism. If they had said, look we need to increase the block size enough to get us over this hump until we can roll out some more practical second layer solutions and pressed for that I bet they could have gotten our capitulation. Instead Ver comes out ranting and raving about how he is the one true emissary of Satoshis will and that Satoshi wanted huge blocks, big enough that everyone and their grandma can fit how ever many trivial transactions as they wish in there and that that WAS the solution to scaling, not a temporary stop gap measure. Your argument sounds reasonable enough but they are not the arguments I am familiar with from the bcash community. I think perhaps you may be projecting rather than accurately describing the general consensus in the community. Unless you are trying to run defense for them by presenting them in a more rational light. Add that the way Core/BS implemented the ugly kluge of shoehorning segwit in via a so-called soft fork has fundamentally changed Bitcoin's security model, and there is not much to love there.
They did that because their hand was forced by you guys. No one wanted to roll that out as early as they did in that state. They were trying to save bitcoin from Ver's hair brained machinations. Sure, Lightning allows high frequency txs between a limited set of participants, but it really doesn't do much for increasing the number of participants themselves. You can still only open or close about 5 channels per sec. How long will it take if everyone in the world wanted to open _one_ channel? Three decades.
Like I said before. I'm in favor of bigger blocks. I am not in favor of Ver's loony vision for the future of bitcoin. But we've been over all these points - and more. I will continue to believe that Bitcoin Cash has the right way forward for Bitcoin. Others will continue to think that I am daft. I don't much care. I am happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But when others cast aspersions, I will reply to the slander.
Nothing to really say to this part. Shill your shitcoin in Rogers forum please... Thanks...
In his defense I did egg him on. |
|
|
|
For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.
The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s
The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.
Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.
There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.
I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal. But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former. You're the guy that when the Mormons ride up to your door, you invite them in, make them a strong mug of caffeine free tea, and then engage in a spirited discussion with them about the finer points of their beliefs with no serious intent on being converted. Aren't you? Haha guilty  . I have never done that specific thing, but yea, I'm that guy. |
|
|
|
For the time being, mostly blocksize. As blocksize is all that is needed at this stage.
The BCH community, however, did demonstrate conclusively that:
- generic home computer HW on consumer broadband running bitcoind can handle ~100 tx/s
- above ~100 tx/s there is still plenty of CPU BW
- a fix to bitcoind's naive threading model increases performance
- bitcoind with fixed threading on same HW & net can handle ~500 tx/s
The BCH community is doing the work of re-enabling a host of opcodes that were thrown overboard years ago before any real analysis was performed upon them. Oh, I guess that's not scaling.
Of course, it was that same community (though pre-fork) that first implemented Xthin, which reduces network bandwidth consumption by nearly 2x.
There is discussion of adopting Lightning. Not much traction for that. There's orders of magnitude that can be gained by a simple blocksize change first.
I certainly am not willing to use up that much of my home bandwidth. And even if I was, 500 tx/s isn't nearly enough to be a good long term goal. I mean if that was all that we were capable of achieving than it would be enough for bitcoin to be a useful niche technology, that would even be true if we were stuck forever at 7tx/s, but both are less than ideal. But ok, so increasing block size is a useful scaling vector. I actually think most people on the main chain side of the divide agree with that, I know I do. Other main chain supporters in this tread, how do you feel about responsible block size increases that correspond to improvements in computer hardware and networking infrastructure? It seems to me that the divide is not between willingness to increase blocksize or not, its a disagreement on whether we should be taking an extremely restrictive uni directional approach to this problem vs a more comprehensive multi faceted approach. I just don't see how someone can argue for the former. |
|
|
|
And no, BCH is not merely a money grab by a small handful of individuals. It is a legitimate contender in the cryptocurrency space, being developed by an legion of participants. And quite possibly in the long term the savior of Bitcoin. There is no fraud here. Nobody who looks at the issue more then five minutes is confused about the fact that BCH and BTC are two different things. The accusation that there is some intended fraud here is beyond ludicrous.
Please enlighten me. The early rhetoric from ver and the bcash community turned me off to it so much that I have had no interest in learning anything about the project since. So really all I know is that they intended to "scale" by increasing the blocksize and that ver is the only one true disciple of satoshi capable of correctly divining his will (holy crap he really does think hes bitcoin Jesus). Both absolutely ludicrous propositions. Has anything changed? Are they proposing realistic alternatives to lightning for scaling? Are there new developments that I should be aware of? |
|
|
|
That 'unknown' hash sure is creeping up! 26% of total hash-rate or 133 mh/s.. Do I smell an ASIC?  Can this be a large private farm? It's bigger than nanopool with 90000 users mining XMR! It couldn't be asic. There is just no way that anyone could roll out an asic that quickly. The unknown hashrate is almost certainly botnets. If it is that would correspond to my earlier conjecture on the size of their impact on this chain. Lets hope so.  What was your earlier conjecture? What percentage of the hashrate do you reckon is botnets? |
|
|
|
I only care about bitcoin everything else seems insignificant
Pretty much, sitting here day after day waiting for 2021 ish when my stash will make me rich. Running two companies is boring & unfulfilling. I want to travel, fuck hookers & snort copious amounts of cocaine. I highly doubt you will find that very fulfilling for very long. |
|
|
|
That 'unknown' hash sure is creeping up! 26% of total hash-rate or 133 mh/s.. Do I smell an ASIC? Can this be a large private farm? It's bigger than nanopool with 90000 users mining XMR! It couldn't be asic. There is just no way that anyone could roll out an asic that quickly. |
|
|
|
Pretty sure the speeches were anti-anti-semitism, but who can tell these days? Twats abound.
Wait. Can I be anti-anti-anti-semitic without being anti-semitic? |
|
|
|
Reptilla.
I feel like he is long gone at the moment. Shame for the guy. But I feel a lesson in that. Even when you've made it, you haven't made it yet. what ever happened with that guy? Based on his Facebook update from January he is living in some kind of commune in Estonia. A commune where you dont communicate with the outside world anymore after you enter I think is called a cult. He must really feel bad about his ponzi scheme. That's the thing about ponzi schemes. The people who create them usually often never intended to. |
|
|
|
Blockchain does suck. The only real use is to avoid any kind of trust in a centralized authority. In the real world a better world than the one we actually live in there are much better databases.
|
|
|
|
this famous diagram:  My contention has always been that an important albeit secondary feedback, from increased hashing power to increased hoarding, is omitted from this diagram. Who here, when deciding whether or not to hodl, has checked the current hash rate to help aid them in that decision? I'm not saying it doesn't happen. Just that if it does I wasn't aware of it. So that is why I am asking. |
|
|
|
I do not like Monero, in fact. It was promised that this coin will be completely anonymous, but in fact it is not. Why deceive your own investors?
Come with facts and we start listening, otherwise just ... off. Sorry to be rude, but what u just said without backing it up doesn’t make any sense oh, don't be so harsh. Postings of uniformed trolls are usually a bullish sign. I rather like the idea of trolls in uniforms. I'd start to think quite differently about them. Forgive my sloppy spelling, that should have read "uninformed"; nevertheless, the idea of them wearing something standardised, probably in grey polyester with a clip on tie, is quite appealing. Perhaps those Russian troll-farms have a dress-code? Hahaha  |
|
|
|
We are near 8k. Lets see if this time is another bull trap or not.
Personally I don't think so. The volatility had gotten so low there that the price was deciding which way to break out. It looks to me like a decision was made. |
|
|
|
Overall, Monero got lots of positive press and videos and everything now with changing mining algorithm. More people that got in crypto in 2017 will now look at Monero. I bet all metrics of Monero went up ( google searches, reddit subs, ...) Such things are not seen on price immediately but gradually over time.
Yea. Confirmed. Big boost. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=moneroNICE, good call Febo and thx for the link I always forget about that. I find it interesting when broken down by region as well. China is way up there, I like that. BTW this makes me smile. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=bitcoin%20cashOman, I lold. I search things on there all the time but it's always projects that I'm interested in. I never thought to search for crap to see if it is dying. |
|
|
|
Overall, Monero got lots of positive press and videos and everything now with changing mining algorithm. More people that got in crypto in 2017 will now look at Monero. I bet all metrics of Monero went up ( google searches, reddit subs, ...) Such things are not seen on price immediately but gradually over time.
Yea. Confirmed. Big boost. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=monero |
|
|
|
Which did not lasted all to long. It seems each and every algo is ASICifyable, a company in possession of these capabilities will for sure dominate the whole crypto bussiness until PoS replaces POW.
A PoS fork of monero would be interesting, especially for botnet operators?
Shouldn't it be, at least theoretically, possible to make a hashing algorithm for which a standard PC is its ASIC? Maybe we will get there one day. Or maybe new algorithms will be developed that get closer and closer every year. |
|
|
|
After the hard fork, ASICS should be out of the race. But fighting centralisation would also mean kicking botnets out. Do you have any plans for changing the algorithm in a way that botnet mining will become obsolete?
CPU's aren't that efficient. Unless it's an absolutely massive botnet I think we can just think of the operator as another miner. Further he is a miner who is bringing hashing power online that almost certainly wouldn't have been used to secure the network otherwise like your grandmas pentium and your uncles toaster. Asics make real decentralized miners unable to compete in a way that I don't think botnets do. Point is, I don't mind botnet miners. They are going to go somewhere. They are going to point their hashing power at something. I would rather it be us. Also it isn't clear that there is anything that could be done about that. It would be a very taxing never ending arms race at best. Tweaking the hashing algo every 6 months is something of a never ending arms race, but it's not taxing in that way, it's pretty simple really. |
|
|
|
How much a war between USA and Russia over control of Syria could affect bitcoin price?
It should be about the most bullish thing ever. Without censorship there is no need for blockchain. We may as well just use a database. Blockchain exists and is useful because it circumvents censorship. With war comes lots of censorship. And I don't mean of media really. I mean transaction censorship. Censorship of capital flows. On the extreme end Russia could still sell securities and equities to Americans despite sanctions using blockchain. "Illegal" trade can still be conducted between the two nations that never would have even been possable in the cold war thanks to blockchain. They are creating the environment that block chain technology was designed to thrive in. They are making us be needed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
