|
Welcome to the forums!
Will you take pre-orders?
|
|
|
|
Why don't we just remove the limit altogether and let the miners decide the blocksize? They've been doing that anyway so instead of an arbitrary cap, just let the market decide? Because this: VII. The minersi decide.
No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.
From my understanding of how a hard fork works then the miners will decide. Why do you keep sucking on MP's cock? Correct me if I am wrong. If miners like the idea, they publish the new block version number in their headers. If they don't, they don't, and no fork happens.
If 75% of the blocks mined in the last 1000 have the new block version number, the miners are free to make a >1Mb block. But nobody has to. A friendly reminder for everyone: iCEBREAKER is the one that shilled extremely hard pro HashFast a failed venture who scammed thousand of customers of their money promising unreal stuff! It would be a mistake to think that he is out for the good of everyone. Most of the people in Hardware forum have him on ignore because of his way of being. Do you remember the aborted CoinValidation startup? (The one that basically wanted to make a business of destroying Bitcoin's fungibility by wanting to blacklist certain categories of coins on opaque criteria)
Do you think it is good that miners are only a handful of identified entities that governments can pressure to refuse to process transactions on criteria other than economic ones?
At first I thought having green or black lists was a bad thing. After more thinking I came to the conclusion that the future WILL have them. They will be needed just like we have black and green IP lists. This isn't wrong and it will have a minimal impact on the majority. |
|
|
|
Please add us to the list: URL: http://www.greatnorthdata.com/Price: Starting at $67.80/KW USD, significant savings for deposits and bulk orders, cheapest hosting in the world Location: Goose Bay, Labrador, Canada Comment: No set up fees, taxes in, 24/7 on site personnel, free maintenance/RMA work Welcome! What is the minimum kW requirement in order to be a customer? Also I see that you have some SP30 hosted. Are they yours? If they belong to someone on this forum can they confirm it? |
|
|
|
In other words, AM is dead.
Told you so! Edit: That was my moment. Thank you everyone! Time to retreat to my cave. |
|
|
|
Stop repeating this 110nm BS, AM produced 40nm chip in 2014, BE200, and built mining hardware with that chip. To bild a 5PH/s mining farm with 110nm chip, BE100, you need: 5PH/s isn't BE100, that's retarded. That would be 16 million chips, 500,000 blades, ~50MW of power.
People tend to get irrational exactly when they need to be rational. |
|
|
|
According to the latest status the BE300 is confirmed and working. However, to bring the chip to market requires FIXED COST + COST PER CHIP + BUILD OUT COST. The funding situation for this is dire and it would require a new investor or a big buyer who has to be certain that he gets what he is promised. There are two scenarios where this could be quickly achieved:
a) A bitcoin price explosion would release dormant capital instantly shifting the reward/risk ratio.
b) A new type of investor who enjoys preferred treatment over AM Shareholders for the financing of the BE300 tech. Likely implemented as a joint venture.
So AM is broke just as expected since there was no financial report last year. Thanks for confirming this. |
|
|
|
+4.25% to +4.50
has been picked below are open: so roadstress and Xian01 please pick new numbers Thanks. I pick: + 5.26 to +5.50 |
|
|
|
"Whether or not we do" means "We must do" in your language?
Interesting. That ain't the way English works, unless you learned your language from Faux News.
I have read it on the run I admit. Thanks for the correction. |
|
|
|
Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time.
Lol, wtf is this brain damaged logic where "it's ok to deliberately make things weak and broken, because as soon as it becomes a problem, we can repair it" ? No reading comprehension skill on your side. I said that it is ok to deliberately try new things which will not become a problem since we can spot it long before it's an actual problem and since we can always lower the block size. but my problem with the current proposal is that i think we need an incentive for miners to make smaller blocks.
...
i want that because i think we need a fee based market...
So you are trying to enforce your views on the miners instead of letting them decide. |
|
|
|
a decentralized system should not rely on a centralized failover. its good that its there, but i can't accept this as an argument to "try out things"
How do you propose that we build an better/perfect financial system to replace the current one? By not making any change? Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time. |
|
|
|
If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number, then clients will start rejecting any blocks with the old block version number, and the fork will be enforced from that point onward whether the blocks formed are >1Mbyte or not. This is interesting. Is this really true? If we fork we will need to have mandatory >1MB blocks? Everything else will be orphaned? The GSM network didn't need to "evolve" for iPhones to be able to function properly, in the very same way the core backbone that is Bitcoin doesn't need to be "fixed" with hardcoded exponential growth to allow innovation. Again with pointless arguments instead of something constructive. The GSM network evolved to support the gazzilions of iPhones that are using it. The GSM network isn't a limited network where you have to bid your place in order to use it. Was this your best argument? You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that it is easier to revert to a previous version of something if you realize you fucked up than to fix problems when you actually have had an opportunity to actually witness and analyze them.
I didn't said that it's easier, but you know the truth that Bitcoin has some failover mechanism in place in case something goes wrong. Be is a vulnerability of any kind or a hard fork the failover systems are there.
Also hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon until the point that there is an actual problem. It's not something that can go wrong overnight. So yes I think that you actually aren't honest at all if you deliberately choose to ignore Bitcoin the failover systems. |
|
|
|
You can't compare bitcoin to video games if you want to make any sort of sense. I am comparing bitcoin to any software evolution since Bitcoin IS a software first of all. It is a software that is in its early days. ALL software evolve and will have higher hardware requirements until they reach an equilibrium of code optimization and hardware capabilities. Bitcoin hasn't reached that equilibrium since it's only ~6 years old. Let it evolve! With your logic we end up with a new iOS every year, designed at pushing the hardware and getting us to buy a new iPhone... You just proved my point. Let's get deeper into this. Remember that nobody is forcing you to buy a new iPhone. You could still use the old ones if you don't upgrade and you can still make calls with a Nokia 1100. This is what we need to happen with Bitcoin too. That's completely backwards, it just makes so much more sense to wait that the hardware actually is of handling it before doing a modification...
Care to explain why? I see it as wasted time since we can have checkpoints and we can always revert to any setting to avoid problems. We could always decrease the blocksize if we really can't handle bigger blocks. Waiting for the hardware = wasted development time. Edit: If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin. I'm not going to start supporting UnSavoryGarnish just because it's taken a trendier hippsterish form. Quoted for future laughs and for putting salt on pain! |
|
|
|
By nailing it from the first time?
Isn't this precisely what Gavin wants to do? By committing Bitcoin today, to what he thinks the capabilities of tomorrow's computers will be? Well no. You are trying to divert from the subject one again. Gavin is the pioneer that pushed development and evolution further. Every software has evolved this way. Every software pushed the hardware to new limits. Looking at every piece of software from inception up to today's state it's easily to see that the requirements of software were always bigger than current hardware until they reach an equilibrium. Didn't PC games pushed the video card business further? Didn't video processing pushed hardware further in terms of pure raw power and code optimization? By your logic no software should evolve if the developers aren't pushing the current hardware requirements. Even if the tomorrow's computers will not be able to handle it, it's not like we can't go back if the tomorrow computers will not be able to handle what is Gavin proposing and it's not like we will not have some kind of warnings ahead. I would expect to see more constructive points from a Staff member instead of continuous opposing arguments and useless questions that bring nothing new to the table. |
|
|
|
How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By not inventing and trying new stuff? How did everything that we have today got to this point? By getting it right from the first time and never trying new and absurd things to everything around us??? Go invent your "better finance system" somewhere else; if it's truly better, it'll win out. I'm not afraid of all the countless altcoins attempting exactly this. That doesn't answer to my question. I will try again: How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By nailing it from the first time? This is what we had with our current financial system? I expect an answer, not a rejection, but I don't assume that you are capable of one since you already tried to divert the discussion. Show me something that big like a financial system that got it right from the first time without experimenting new stuff! I dare you! Double dare you! |
|
|
|
If you want the kids full bio report as well as his partner in crime, I can provide all of that for you. I went to college with these nut jobs before they decided to take a year off to pursue this failure of a shit scamming spree.
I'm glad that I only tried one miner with them for a limited period of time. |
|
|
|
|
Hey QC it seems that minersource are non-responsive. Please remove them from the list. People have miners with them and they can't get a hold of them.
|
|
|
|
<eating lots of shit>
Hello Mircea Popescu shitsockpuppet account! Long time, no post. What happened today? Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature. You, same as the others anti-fork dudes are guilty of being chicken shit scared. You state that you don't know stuff so you deny it! That is a bad attitude towards change and towards evolution. The denial is simply bad even if everything goes horribly bad. This is a Beta experiment. It's something new that never existed before and here you are denying everyone experimenting with this new stuff. Because this is what humans do and this is how we evolved. We never try anything new! We do not experiment! We get it right from the first time! Always! How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By not inventing and trying new stuff? How did everything that we have today got to this point? By getting it right from the first time and never trying new and absurd things to everything around us??? If this is the true mentality of yours and of everyone else opposing the fork then this is absurdly wrong! |
|
|
|
When I read gavin's post, I don't see that he understand the strength of Bitcoin.
Because he says if we can't have more transactions, people will leave for western union or swift.
Because it will be cheaper.
He speaks like if he doesn't understand Bitcoin and swift are apples and oranges.
Swift and wu move government uncontrolled tokens.
Bitcoin is about independent money...
LOL. Yes you are right. Gavin doesn't understand Bitcoin. Be right back in 5 mins to laugh my ass off! Let me put it this way. Keeping a 1MB block limit will make the fees rise to a competitive level. If the fees are higher than WU or SWIFT then it's logical that people will migrate back to those systems. Understood? Was it hard? |
|
|
|
Hey, you've got the Legendary tag... don't know how long you've had it, but it's the first time I've noticed. Congrats  Since December |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
