Waiting for that euphoria candle...  |
|
|
|
Is anyone else finding hdbuck's crisis of derived authority rather delicious?  |
|
|
|
|
Price holding the 400's handily, lambie talking all sorts of sense all day... ughh
I'm off to play some Fallout 4 to imagine a bleaker world.
♫ I don't want to set the world on fi-ire... ♬
take your meds radr0ach
|
|
|
|
All you idiots and your innuendo about "basic economic theory". Bitcoin is the one ring to rule them all, except monero, which is better, but... where was I? Oh yes, Bitcoin is gold, digital gold, elementally unique and free from outside competition. We simply have to sit back, read popescu's blogs, snark the free shit army, and just wait for all those central bank reserves to come rolling in. And then... guess what? We're rich!   Can I get an amen and a XTard, hdbuck? Maybe a devastating one liner from early adopter brg444? brb, syncing my catcoin and corgicoin full node clients to make some purchases |
|
|
|
the main problem is that he is shooting all that kind of bs from weeks now and even ignores if you try to pin out other problems connected to that fact and that kills bitcoin, and anyway this thread was supposed to be a celebration about xt and bip101 fail instead we talk about those like if somebody still care about it
Solid analysis.  |
|
|
|
Gentlemen?
I hereby call that when Jay Juan Gee hits his first dollar in gains... it is grentlemen. |
|
|
|
Holding these heights for a day or two more would paint a pretty picture compared to the skittish euphoria of the 504 spike.  |
|
|
|
ambling market is one such use case. If one is careful not to loose those bits.  |
|
|
|
here comes Mike Hearn's little free shit peed-in-my-pants panic derp army ... sheesh, when will you guys ever get half a clue?  or how about posting some code to gihub with unit tests, math, simulations and well-reasoned arguments? ... nup, just we duh wunt mah-big-blocks massah. Hearn and Gavin already did that. got my XT node up and running. It should have the whole chain downloaded by the time I get home from work. Will Mike have time to maintain it after signing with r3cv? Did gavin take the reins? I'm not against alternate implementations, but you must admit that core is a pretty competent group. A patched version of core with almost zero mining support is not going to happen. I guess it is a "vote" of sorts. |
|
|
|
Thanks to gmaxwell, the nail was put into the coffin rather early with this one. Not sure which one I like more yet, Dorian's Choo Choos, or the Tulip Trust in the Seychelles. |
|
|
|
Low fee transactions could take days to confirm. Zero fee xactions may never confirm.
Sounds like it will finally work like it should be. The blockchain is too valuable a resource to be wasted by zero and ridiculously low fee txs. And it's not only scaling but usability too. If I have a 100mb block size and it takes me a couple of hours just to sync the last day or a day to sync the last week (before I send a payment), will this be usable? Or will people say, ah yes, now you lost the ability to run bitcoin-qt, just use a thin client... Stop with the hyperbole, a 2MB patch was offered, a 2-4-8 was proposed. All too dangerous... we need to rewrite the way the entire system works so that we can get 2-4MB with a soft fork. Not saying that SegWit isn't a good idea, but you shouldn't berate people for harboring a bit of frustration with the way the negotiations have gone, and with the incentives attached to those making the arguments. |
|
|
|
220,000 transactions in last 24 hours. To me this is the real indicator bitcoin is going mainstream.
To me this is an indicator that we're going to hit the 1 MB limit before resolving the scaling issue. We're over half maximum capacity. If the network bogs down, people on the exchanges will turn to the only exit left: fiat. It will be Gox in reverse. Worldwide on every exchange. Low fee transactions could take days to confirm. Zero fee xactions may never confirm. And what if some exchanges are running a fiat fractional reserve? They would have to liquidate BTC holdings to fill withdrawal requests, pushing prices down farther. Leveraged longs hit a margin call cascade. Miners forced to sell a larger percentage of mined coins to pay for electricity. Nothing's been fixed. Nothing. 600,000 xactions/day could create a backlog that will never clear. Companies with business models that depend on low fees could dump everything and cut their losses. You'd better pray we get the capacity up before we grow much more or we could crash so far that we lose first mover advantage and never recover. Don't think there aren't people waiting, wanting and actively working to make that happen. ... smells like a ripe opportunity, you should build a business to meet all this unmet demand you are predicting and make some serious bank. Say a lightning hub or sidechain for inter-exchange transactions? Seems there is a certain highly placed and well funded competitor to kindly eat BJA's lunch in that arena. |
|
|
|
It sorts like a way to efficiently compress the weight of blocks by removing something that's not needed when possible.
As merely one question, can we really consider the signature as something that's not needed? I get that we're not _eliminating_ the sig, merely putting it in a separate (segregated) container, apart from the rest of the transaction. But any entity that wants to operate bitcoin in a trustless manner is going to need to be able to fully validate each transaction. Such entities will need the signature, right? Accordingly, such entities will need both components, so no data reduction for them, right? Currently, relay nodes verify each transaction before forwarding it, do they not? If they are denied the signature, they can no longer perform this verification. This seems to me to be a drastically altered division of responsibilities. Sure, this may still work, but how do we know whether this is a good repartitioning of the problem? Further, does this open a new attack vector? If 'nodes' are going to stop validating transactions before forwarding them, then there is nothing to stop them from forwarding invalid transactions. What if an attacker were to inject many invalid transactions into the network? Being invalid, they would be essentially free to create in virtually unbounded quantities. If nodes are no longer validating before forwarding, this would result in 'invalid transaction storms', which could consume many times the bandwidth of the relatively small number of actual valid traffic. If indeed this is a valid concern, then this would work exactly contrary to its stated goal of increasing scalability. Note I am not making any claims here, but I am asking questions, prompted from my incomplete understanding of this feature. Some of us are suffering from a sort of whiplash... we've been told (by some factions and their hangers-on) for months that raising max block size even to 2MB is highly dangerous for decentralization. But now, completely reorganizing some of the basic functions of the protocol, with a (somewhat unnecessary) requirement that there be no hard fork... has led us to the point where the same group with those concerns... is offering a fairly drastic solution that effectively raises the requirements for fully validating nodes to a 4MB(or 2?) max equivalent. SegWit is widely agreed to be a net positive to incorporate into Bitcoin (especially if it can kill malleability problems), but the burden of vetting and testing should be much more involved than a one line patch like BIP102. My fear is that we will be into 2017 before anything is deployed, and we will continue to be without the base data that garzik's 102 would provide. And, the precedent that "hard forks r bad n scary" would still be firmly in place, and would be rolled out to stifle any possibility of future main chain capacity growth. |
|
|
|
The more you dig, the more you're left with the impression that Wright went to fairly extensive lengths to out himself as satoshi. I considered for a brief moment that Wright concocted the story to somehow get control of the late Dave Kleiman's bitcoin, but after looking a bit into Kleiman... it appears that is also not the case. Fun story though ('cept for Dave's role). Sadly, it looks like the "Tulip Trust locked up until 2020" was just a dream.  |
|
|
|
....
Add this one : Problem: Dr Wright didn't provide cryptographic evidence of his claims. Thought: It's so fucking easy to do if you have the keys and will end all this nonsense speculation at once. It seems just someone desperate to get some attention and solve his financial troubles. The best I can ascertain is that Craig Wright concocted this entire episode at the time of Dave Kleiman's death, with his wife, Ramona Watts, in on the entire thing. They thought they had troubles before, I'd say they're pretty well fucked now. Ding Ding Ding I considered for a brief moment that Wright concocted the story to somehow get control of the late Dave Kleiman's bitcoin, but after looking a bit into Kleiman... it appears that is also not the case. Exciting story though. The Tulip Trust was my favorite bit. |
|
|
|
soooooo, we panic nao?
You gotta do what feels right for you. I for one am not performing any more camsex shows tonight just in case. Your comedy game is banging on all cylinders today gentlemand. |
|
|
|
From earlier today...   |
|
|
|
An on-topic post!  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
