Remember though, Carlton says,
" If you're unaware of the [core segwit] scaling plans and their level of progress/acceptance, you only have yourself to blame."
lol carlton. lol another PR guy that cant quote states and tries the word twisting game. but in the fluffy clouds of testnet segwit is perfect...... carlton and lauda will tell you segwit is perfect, without them even personally knowing a single line of code. not only did lauda fail at coding but carlton could not even explain the basics of uninstalling a program in linux.. so when i see them two mouth pieces talk.. all i see is the words "blockstream PR department rambles" What do you estimate the best case for segwit to have any effect on tx backlog, tx's that I presume are supposed to keep growing. (remember bitcoin adoption?) Anyway, 6 months minimum before segwit has any effect on tx backlog, probably, most likely longer. Then, even worse, segwit will be rushed and effectively released untested. Who has access to this segwit/presegwit testnet? |
|
|
|
are people even listening to lauda.. he doesnt even know C++, Whoever I've asked previously (as I don't do C++ myself) said that the complexity is overblown by a 'certain group'.
proof he has to seek guidance from his blockstreamer buddies he even thought bitcoin-core was coded in java...January 17th 2016 20:24
Lauda: Bitcoin does not use Java right?
meaning he cant even recognise java to know core is not java. he has no coding experience nor personally used segwit testnet.. all he has done was got info from blockstreamers about how many unicorns it can handle flying through the clouds he is just a blockstream PR guy, on the side of theymos.. I suspect that reflects the bias of the site owner to employ such people. No definitive, or even defined explanation on segwit here. or anywhere. Remember though, Carlton says, " If you're unaware of the [core segwit] scaling plans and their level of progress/acceptance, you only have yourself to blame." slightly edited. |
|
|
|
you send a BTC TX == near instant.
when he knows that merchants dont AND SHOULD NOT accept zero confirms. That's not true. In several occasions I paid at merchants and they accepted the tx with zero confirmations. that is the exception.. and not the safe rule. "AND SHOULD NOT accept zero confirms" ...as absooute proof of payment, which defines bitcoin. Obviously, merchants can except zero comf if they want to take you on trust. (were these "merchants" local to you kik? were they online? Were you buying big or small?) As Franky said, it is not the safe rule. Either merchants have taken a risk because they know you, or because your payment was so small, or because despatch could be cancelled if comfirm failed. Or other reasons. But zero comf is not a done deal. |
|
|
|
My last transaction was need 1 hour and usually 10-15 minutes only  This could happen sometime but not usually. Usual time for 1 confirmation for bitcoin transaction is 10 minute that seems to fluctuate these days. Don't know the actual reason for this. However to maintain 25 bitcoins per 10 minute average time to get 1 confirmation always get maintained as 10 minute. You are confusing comf time with block prop time. "Usual time for 1 confirmation for bitcoin transaction is 10 minute" Usual time for next block is 10 minute. Your comf time however depends on a range of factors. "seems to fluctuate these days. Don't know the actual reason for this" Clearly not. "However to maintain 25 bitcoins per 10 minute average time to get 1 confirmation always get maintained as 10 minute." Your confusing block prop time with comf time again! |
|
|
|
How much fee did you pay for that transaction? Maybe you just need a higher fee for that transaction to speed up. If you want to compare it with bank, the fee would be more expensive in bank.
You don;t understand how bitcoin works either. The tx in question was included in the FIRST BLOCK that was mined, after the tx was sent. The next comf was 20 min later. the very next block after the first block. You could have paid 10 btc in fees, it would have made NO difference. This tx COULD NOT have been processed any faster. (luck of block propagation time aside) ***************** 2nd comf 412859 (Main Chain) 2016-05-22 09:33:43 BW.COM 0000000000000000020e5e6ab86cea2e0a98275ab72e1e67054af125162a0dc8998.09 1st comf 412858 (Main Chain) 2016-05-22 09:13:20 F2Pool 00000000000000000202b69f405cc49dc0ac7e6a912ade7a119fb43dd07dd00 999.98 previous block, 412857 (Main Chain) 2016-05-22 08:46:34 BW.COM 0000000000000000025974e82b0d888c464d530476ec80a4fd34191d1f477dd0 998.12 At least 15 min before the tx was sent. |
|
|
|
I don't think that it can reach there in one week's time, I think we will see that price at the time of halving, as price is moving up very slowly at this stage.
yeah but the traffic to this site will be exploding we are facing several money multiplier fundamentals here, btc companies not to mention banks, news outlets here we go  But tx's at capacity, segwit delayed, or anyway, many months away from any use. No block size increase. Eth booms, Btc stagnates. Adam, Luke and Peter are all dipshits so I'm told. Bit of a dampener. |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
It seems that the Bitcoin system is soon going to collapse. On 9.37 my time I transferred 1 BTC to another wallet. Here 10 min later there is still no transactions confirmations. It's really "scary" and even something the banks can do much faster. Now almost 11 min in the first confirmation came through. I need two confirmation since it's required by C-Cex. What it means is that if you need to react fast on some currency movement and you need the BTC (sadly not RBT) you have to wait.....and wait.....
So the second confirmation came through more than 30 min later.
What does it tell you about the Bitcoin infrastructure? To me it's about to collapse.
It's simply too slow!
You simply don't understand bitcoin then. First comf in 11 min, completely normal. Second comf ALWAYS comes in the following block. You were slightly unlucky the second comf took longer than 10 min. You could have been lucky and the second comf could have taken 2 min, but it didn't. The infrastructure is running at full (core restricted) capacity and does have delays, but that did not cause your problem. You just described exactly how bitcoin is meant to work. There is no problem here. 11 min first comf? You don't understand bitcoin. |
|
|
|
"* Do tests in a mixed network of upgraded and non-upgraded nodes." That should take a while. Then when all these parts are put together, all that will need testing. Far more than a small block increase, which is more predictable. Part of the problem of promising something that still needed making. With no back up plan for delays, proper testing time or lack of general adoption. |
|
|
|
Is segwit cancelled? No, (not yet) just not made yet, just not tested yet, just not released yet. The code is being thoroughly tested while also some missing pieces are being added.
How can it be thoroughly tested while still adding "missing" bits? |
|
|
|
|
I was clearly wrong on my 2-4 weeks.
we are right on the edge now, I think.
As bitcoin stagnates in the name of Core purity, others rise.
Untested segwit promised to be rushed in soon maybe.
|
|
|
|
So lets change everything else instead, in the form of (properly) untested segwit. duh.
A softfork is nearly not as dangerous as a hardfork. Nodes doesnt need to update all at once, so people will have time to safely update and if some error happens they can signal it instantly. So if 10-20% update instantly, then the other 80% will have time for feedback and they will update later.
But if you force a hardfork that needs 100% update, so if an error happens, the entire network collapses. Are you are troll or simply that ignorant to not understand that? Real nxtbitcoin? Correct, a soft fork is nearly not as dangerous as a hardfork,. |
|
|
|
It is artificial because it is not necessary at the point we're at right now. The intention was never to keep the blocksize capped at 1mb forever. So yes, it is artificial. Creating a fee market this early in the game is not conducive to the widespread mainstream adoption of Bitcoin as a currency. Your average layman user does not understand these things. They need to be able to transact without having to guesstimate what fee they should pay, lest their transaction end up stuck for three days. A fee market is something we should think about after the block reward has gone through several more halvings, not during a phase when we need more adoption and more users (and thus restricting user's ability to even use the network).
How many businesses are passing up the Bitcoin space right now because they know it can't scale? Too many. Stalling this long has deleterious consequences.
It is as it is now, this is the path bitcoin has come down to. And doing hardforks is very foolish and irresponsible now. All the hackers in the world await a vulnerability and if bitcoin lets its guard down it will be destroyed. Pushing a hardfork in would be the biggest vulterability bitcoin can ever have. So any sane minded person is opposing hardfork.
But any softfork alternative ideas are welcome. So lets change everything else instead, in the form of (properly) untested segwit. duh. |
|
|
|
I see people on here being asses to the female half of humankind every so often, and I'd like to remind them that we don't even know which half of humankind Satoshi was a member of.
Thankyou. |
|
|
|
Which blockstream Core members are the next Mike hearns?  |
|
|
|
FWIW, the first dev version of Bitcoin from Satoshi that I saw didn't even have a block size limit at all. So, I'd pretty emphatically say this crisis wasn't her idea.
Putting a limit on the block size was Hal Abelson's idea, because he was running down that standard list of threats and got to "Denial of Service."
It was considered a temporary measure, just to prevent stupid stuff from happening. At the time bitcoin was still sort of imaginary nerd money and some 4chan troll would likely have tried to spike it with an impossible-to-store block chain just for the lulz. None of us ever imagined it would become this point of contention.
Yeah. Now it is core (are hoping) insurance of segwit adoption. "this crisis wasn't her idea" - Nice touch. |
|
|
|
bitcoin needs to go mainstream but it cannot go Doesn't need "mainstream", just organic growth would do me. The corporations and companies are in favor of increasing the block size to handle the increasing number of transactions. The massive consumer adoption and bitcoin moon moment is not going to happen without this change. I am also in favour of a blocksize increase. It could have been a small increase introduced by Core. But any mention of such logic is scoffed at as Classic shilling. (yeah classic rekt thread full of childish presumption, self rightiousness) 1mb as a "limit" it's quite ridiculous. Miners are against increasing block size since it affects their profits, they feel shameful to tell this , so they identify themselves as vanguards of bitcoin principles such as decentralization, as it favors large centralized miners. A classic example of how self interest can hamper the very own thing that they are working upon. Developers also join this bandwagon. Not sure that is correct. Miners will follow the profit, there are other ways. Sudden change is not an impossibility. Could it be that satoshi had envisioned this crisis long before? or did he design it in such a way that this crisis ensures bitcoin does not go mainstream and bitcoin remains a low player, very much suitable for criminal activities alone? Didn't he foresee how sudden consensus in a crisis could be the norm? Core's segwit imposed as a soft fork is an attack on bitcoin and will be exposed as such. Miners are playing ball with Core atm, but will not hang around in "a real crisis". (coming soon either via stoneage block congestion or segwit bugs. not sure what may come first) If the only option out of the next price collapse is Classic, so be it. The miners will have no option. |
|
|
|
People can always use alts to move money, they don't have to use BTC. For example the fee when using doge is 1 Doge which is about 50 satoshis. I expect this development will hasten the move into alts.
I do prefere Litecoin for exactly that reason. Fast, unexpensive, does the job. Lauda, another alt coin thread? We'll have RealBitcoin here in a minute pushing nxt. It is a self regulating cycle: Mining is not profitable -> some miners leave -> mining becomes profitable for the remaining entities -> new miners join -> mining is not profitable.
That is how it was designed but no chance of that happening ATM, IMO. Mining is profitable -> segwit doesn't come into effect for months/ever -> mempool overload -> fees spike -> mining becomes even more profitable. |
|
|
|
i havent logged into bitcointalk in months...found better things to do with my time
but just checking in..
Glad to hear your good Jonald. This forum, bct, has gone to shite. All that time I complained about neucoin forum, now this one is almost identical. Shite. This thread is on life support. We all know neucoin is neucoin. So bad. |
|
|
|
Coindesk quote from OP, Once the document has "rough consensus" – defined as the general sense that everyone more or less is on board with the idea – it gets merged into the reference client, although it’s still pending review at that point. Is there no rough consensus for a small block size increase? no simple bip? If core wanted to be inclusive... Quote OP, I know it's little bit off topic but while we are speaking about the Bitcoin Core and the updates related to it , when are we supposed to see SegWit ? I've not seen any recent updates. No talk of segwit here on bct, oh, except Carlton Banks posting, SegWit soft fork and the various Lightning implementations continue apace, so one wonders what you're referring to. If you're unaware of the scaling plans and their level of progress/acceptance, you only have yourself to blame. So no, unlike Carlton, I have no idea either. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
