if blocksize gets an issue it will be solved in 24h
its not a big deal, more a question of details
ideialy there wouldnt be this "blocksize" issue in the first place but there is so how do we deal with it dealing with it by ignoring it until it actually start to mess shit up and then saying " that's fine! bitcoin was meant to be slow and costly, using the holly ledger is a privilege! " is wrong. on ther other hand gavins proposal is equally ridiculous to the other extream. i'm confident devs will implement a happy middle ground On what do you base this confidence? Past performance? from what i see, the scaling conference, the open letter from devs, the on going discussion about it. it seems pretty clear something will be done about it, extcal what and when is up in the air. also what's encouraging is that there is still a lot of room for improvement in a few aspects of the protocol, after a little bit of study 2 months ago i concluded we could grow the network 250 times bigger without demanding more bandwidth than is currently being used, if all these improvements were rolled out. and from there i think 10-100 X increase in bandwidth requirements to run a full node isn't all that crazy, so from where i'm standing bitcoin can potently scale by a factor of 2500 - 25000 while still being very decentralized. of course i'm probably being a little optimistic on these potential coding gains. but i ain't worried about scalability anymore. To anyone reading these this "study" was based on flawed assumptions and rather broken understanding of how Bitcoin's gossip network operates. TL;DR the claims in this post don't match reality |
|
|
|
Scust. A bunch of banking parasites pretending to be important. How many full nodes do they run?
How much hashing power do they have behind them?
How many bitcoins do they own?
The industry of Bitcoinfiat companies is the economic minority. Their decision have no incidence within the Bitcoin economy.
|
|
|
|
Satoshi never designed Bitcoin for your free shit nodes army.
I'm gonna keep this quote close. Thank you. So just in order to clear the air you confirm that you vision of Bitcoin is one of mega data centers running full nodes with every individual users all over the world using SPV? Basically yes, the same vision Satoshi had and we all bought in. Unless you have something better to propose that is not vaporware as of right now? Satoshi's vision was dependent on SPV having fraud proof level security which it does not and we have little idea how to implement with current technology. |
|
|
|
Satoshi never designed Bitcoin for your free shit nodes army.
I'm gonna keep this quote close. Thank you. So just in order to clear the air you confirm that you vision of Bitcoin is one of mega data centers running full nodes with every individual users all over the world using SPV? |
|
|
|
Peter R's mojo is made potent by an economically and technically illiterate audiences who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to generate unique thoughts on their own. And to the fact that some segment of the population is drawn to shiny and colorful things which itself is an artifact of our simian ancestry where nature selected individuals who were able to identify fruit which was ripe. Fortunately for Peter R the world is full of such people. I see a lot of name calling, but can't see any actual arguments... Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked throughout various forums, mailing-lists and irc chats. Don't blame it on us if you're late to the party. "Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked" they not his theories. They are part of Bitcoin's intensive system as designed by Shatoshi! He just showed them to you. Satoshi's Bitcoin intensive structure is not yet broken dispirit all your name calling. lots of ignorent people call bitcoin's incentive structure broken and say Satoshi was wrong. Yes, Peter's charlatanism was indeed very useful in describing how fragile the incentives behind the systems are and how stupid it would be to leave the block size unbounded. You know the part he likes to gloss over about negative externalities? Yep, that part. nop. Just smoke and small block screen. Bitcoin's alkalis heel is centralized development and decision making. And you not helping.  Bitcoin's Achilles' heel is the consolidation centralization of its governance into the hands of a few corporate organizations by way of making access to a full node impossible for individuals. |
|
|
|
Peter R's mojo is made potent by an economically and technically illiterate audiences who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to generate unique thoughts on their own. And to the fact that some segment of the population is drawn to shiny and colorful things which itself is an artifact of our simian ancestry where nature selected individuals who were able to identify fruit which was ripe. Fortunately for Peter R the world is full of such people. I see a lot of name calling, but can't see any actual arguments... Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked throughout various forums, mailing-lists and irc chats. Don't blame it on us if you're late to the party. "Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked" they not his theories. They are part of Bitcoin's intensive system as designed by Shatoshi! He just showed them to you. Satoshi's Bitcoin intensive structure is not yet broken dispirit all your name calling. lots of ignorent people call bitcoin's incentive structure broken and say Satoshi was wrong. Yes, Peter's charlatanism was indeed very useful in describing how fragile the incentives behind the systems are and how stupid it would be to leave the block size unbounded. You know the part he likes to gloss over about negative externalities? Yep, that part. |
|
|
|
More ad hominem from the usual suspects.
  |
|
|
|
Peter R's mojo is made potent by an economically and technically illiterate audiences who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to generate unique thoughts on their own. And to the fact that some segment of the population is drawn to shiny and colorful things which itself is an artifact of our simian ancestry where nature selected individuals who were able to identify fruit which was ripe. Fortunately for Peter R the world is full of such people. I see a lot of name calling, but can't see any actual arguments... Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked throughout various forums, mailing-lists and irc chats. Don't blame it on us if you're late to the party. |
|
|
|
As you wish. Just wait and see.
Yes, I just can't wait to ridicule you and rub that shit in your face when you & bank shill Armstrong are told: |
|
|
|
I don't care how it gets fixed, as long as it does gets fixed.
How did we still not get consensus on this?
An open source protocol should be much faster at adopting to change.
This is not a good sign
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Right now Bitcoin still constitutes a potentially usable foundation for autonomous value storage free of counter-party risk (much like precious metals.) It is simple and proven and has stood the test of time and of attack better than I had guessed it would when I initially took a position. I and others see the appropriate track to be to build on the foundation that Bitcoin provides. The most obvious failure mode would be for Bitcoin to grow itself into a situation where it was no longer reliable or workable as an autonomous system supportable by low capital actors. I have little doubt that the real force behind the movement to bloat Bitcoin is coming from people who see things the exact same way. The main difference is that Bitcoin failing is, to me, a bad thing. I think that increasing the blocksize will maximize decentralization and financial freedom compared to the alternatives over the long run. Yes, and some people "think" Quantitative Easing will lead to economic recovery. There's a reason why you're left posing as a corporate side-show on the forums and not in position of power or decision: your opinion and what you "think" is irrelevant since you have no experience or authority in this field. You can shout as loud as you'd like for as long as you want no one is listening. |
|
|
|
My guess is that the Chinese exchanges will follow too as they also need capacity for the exact same reasons.
My guess is that the Chinese are not going to be bullied by the US and there is no actual need for the capacity (as trading on exchanges is not done on the blockchain). No one is bulling anyone. This is open source technology and people are free to do whatever they want. The biggest US companies have decided to fork because Core does not responding to their needs. Well then, be it. Do you see how fucking ass-backward this logic is? "The biggest US companies" have decide Bitcoin doesn't fit their need so they want to change it. And you're saying Bitcoin should bend over and take it heh? Nope. Bitcoin Core is free do to whatever they want and the industry is free to choose whatever implementation they want. They have spoken about what they want and they will fork if needed. That’s what freedom of choice means and represent and how things will turn out. You know someone has completely lost touch with what Bitcoin is all about when he proposes that a bunch of VC backed corporations have the power to change Bitcoin rules to suit whatever it is they desire. Coinbase has one vote in the matter : the node they run. Blockchain.info has one vote in the matter : the node they run. etc. |
|
|
|
My guess is that the Chinese exchanges will follow too as they also need capacity for the exact same reasons.
My guess is that the Chinese are not going to be bullied by the US and there is no actual need for the capacity (as trading on exchanges is not done on the blockchain). No one is bulling anyone. This is open source technology and people are free to do whatever they want. The biggest US companies have decided to fork because Core does not responding to their needs. Well then, be it. Do you see how fucking ass-backward this logic is? "The biggest US companies" have decide Bitcoin doesn't fit their need so they want to change it. And you're saying Bitcoin should bend over and take it heh? Nope. Bitcoin Core is free do to whatever they want and the industry is free to choose whatever implementation they want. They have spoken about what they want and they will fork if needed. That’s what freedom of choice means and represent and how things will turn out. How many full nodes does "the industry" run? How much hashing power do they have behind them? How many bitcoins do they own? The industry of Bitcoinfiat companies is the economic minority. Their decision have no incidence within the Bitcoin economy. |
|
|
|
My guess is that the Chinese exchanges will follow too as they also need capacity for the exact same reasons.
My guess is that the Chinese are not going to be bullied by the US and there is no actual need for the capacity (as trading on exchanges is not done on the blockchain). No one is bulling anyone. This is open source technology and people are free to do whatever they want. The biggest US companies have decided to fork because Core does not responding to their needs. Well then, be it. Do you see how fucking ass-backward this logic is? "The biggest US companies" have decide Bitcoin doesn't fit their need so they want to change it. And you're saying Bitcoin should bend over and take it heh? |
|
|
|
Did you stop for a moment and think maybe it's just because no one cares about your broken forum and your tireless promotion of it? |
|
|
|
I'm not much for regulation myself but I also don't subscribe to the Gavin Conspiracy Theory. I think he is doing what he feels is right and everyone is allowed to make their own decisions.
What conspiracy theory? Fact #1: Gavin was invited by the CIA and accepted invitation. Fact #2: Gavin founded the now mostly defunct Bitcoin Foundation. Fact #3: Gavin together with Mike Hearn tried to initiate a non-consensus hardfork with a previously rejected XT-client that implements blacklisting. Fact #4: Gavin again proves as a perfect servant of the establishment by supporting the blockchain alliance. Fact #5: Gavin constantly tries to exert political influence on Core development via frequent media appearances. Regardless if he is evil or hopelessly naive. His actions are damaging Bitcoin and couldn't be further from Satoshi's vision as engraved in the Genesis block. ya.ya.yo! Couldn't have said it better. And people say it's the guys over at Blockstream we should be concerned about  |
|
|
|
1mb isn't enough for the # of daily transactions occurring. Head over to blockchain.info, just about all the new blocks found are at the 1mb cap. People are waiting too long for transactions.
The price is increasing by a ridiculous amount daily. With this increase of price comes the absurd amount of transactions occurring.
Please Bitcoin devs: Reach a consensus soon to increase the block size, it is long overdue.
I've been moving money in and out of my exchange account all day and haven't had any issue. Maybe it's worth to ask if the people complaining are paying a reasonable fee? |
|
|
|
Dropping from $500 to $380 saves an auction bidder who wants to buy the whole 44K BTC lot $5.2 million dollars.
It took a lot less than 44K or $5.2M to tank the price.
This is whales preparing for the auction people.
That was what I was thinking. It would be beneficial to those that are involved in the auction tomorrow to try to keep the price low in anticipation of it. But what will happen after the auction when some people with some cash in hand that were not able to win? Will that money suddendly be poured into the exchanges? We might have a really fun ride ahead of us!  If a potential bidder were trying to suppress price by selling, that would assume the bidder already had a shitload of coins...coins they were willing to throw away in hopes that the price went down, allowing them to buy cheaper. As I recall, Draper bid WELL over the market price last time. I believe he was in the range of $600, but I'm too lazy to look it up. Seems highly unlikely that he'd take coins he bought at $600 and sell them in the low $400's just to suppress price so that he could buy them back for $500. Even if a bidder planned to bid under market, I'm not sure why they would sacrifice coins they already own to perform such a stunt. Especially seeing as they have no idea whether or not they'll win the auction no matter what price they intend to pay. If somehow outbids you you are shit out of luck |
|
|
|
Dropping from $500 to $380 saves an auction bidder who wants to buy the whole 44K BTC lot $5.2 million dollars.
It took a lot less than 44K or $5.2M to tank the price.
This is whales preparing for the auction people.
Back to 410. oops? |
|
|
|
Sigh.
I doubt we'll see 5 digits. Maybe we'll go into 4 digits, though if we do we'll probably drop back out of it as it will most likely be due to a bubble. But 5 digits is just insane to suggest, I actually would be quite worried by seeing a price that high.
I think maybe you just lack a bit of optimism Nah, no chance. We're having a bit of trouble hitting even $300 right now, I highly doubt we will hit $500 next month. If we do, it signals a really unsustainable bubble and I would be worried about it either way. Like I said, we need sustainable growth, not a ridiculous bubble that will quickly pop.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
