Wow. The deceptive misinformation in this thread is really astonishing.
snip
If you're going to argue that you don't want a system where hashpower consensus allows new script rules for users to use to voluntarily contract with themselves, you should have left Bitcoin in 2010 or 2011 (though it's unclear how any blockchain cryptocurrency could _prevent_ this from happening). Your views, if not just based on simple misunderstandings, are totally disjoint with how Bitcoin works. I don't begrudge you the freedom to want weird or even harmful things-- and I would call denying users the ability to choose whatever contract terms they want out of principle rather than considerations like resource usage both weird and harmful--, but Bitcoin isn't the place for them,
That is so wrong. "If you're going to argue that you don't want a system where hashpower consensus allows new script rules for users to use to voluntarily contract with themselves, you should have left Bitcoin in 2010 or 2011" I don't see jl777 sgbett arguing that. You want hashpower, consencus or not, to blind existing nodes. Introduce trust or obscurity. A hard fork in disguise. "-- and I would call denying users the ability to choose whatever contract terms they want out of principle rather than considerations like resource usage both weird and harmful--" What has jl777 sgbett done to harm Bitcoin? Segwit however could destroy it. (unproven obviously. just opinion) Something better will come in due course. Segwit needs more thought. Segwit needs to be hard forked. edited - gmax does appear to be responding to sgbett. apologies for wrong accreditation.  |
|
|
|
my analysis so far is that it creates a much more complicated error prone system with potential attack vectors that is not peer reviewed that reduces the ability to scale. Maybe my problem is that I am just not smart enough to understand it well enough to appreciate it?
but in some weeks it will be softforked, so its ok, there is no need to worry about it.
All I see is that segwit tx requires more work, more space, more confusion, but we do end up where there are tx in the blockchain that need to be trusted. bitcoin becomes partly a trusted ledger, but ripple is doing fine, so why not
[snipped]
Great posts. I think your smart enough to understand segwit. If anyone can. In "a few weeks" Bitcoin will be fundamentally changed by segwit. (soft forked by core, Bitcoin guardians) I agree with your earlier comment. Segwit must be abandoned postponed. 2mb blocks first, soon, then reassess segwit. At least hard fork. (core could do this, 2mb blocks are road mapped in core?) Segwit is not my bitcoin. Not at this point in time at least. "a much more complicated error prone system with potential attack vectors that is not peer reviewed" |
|
|
|
wow, that's a LOT of changes... practically speaking, will segwit tx work for sending to an old wallet or do both sides need to run it for it to be spendable. it seems that would be the case. if so, doesnt that create a lot of problems along the lines of "i sent you this txid, but you need this wtxid to be able to spend it, oh and the new updated wallet that supports segwit that isnt available yet from your vendor" The txid of a segwit transaction will be the same segwit or not since the signatures are not part of the transaction. Unupgraded users will be able to receive but not spend from segwit transactions. when you say "receive" but not spend, it is received and unverifiable and unspendable, right? is it just me, or does it seem like calling this a softfork might be technically accurate, the market confusion and incompatibility it will cause is pretty much like a hardfork It's not just you, it's me too. Wow, that is a lot of changes. |
|
|
|
I think part of the problem is that 'they' don't want the debate dumbed down. Explaining what's what is somehow beneath them. The biggest issue is lack of communication.
I'm dummin it down. stay tuned |
|
|
|
1) with 2MB (or 4MB), nothing changes much here
2) second layer (LN) does not even exist currently, so pointless to argue whether LN become decentralized or can be used only in centralized maner as seems today
It does actually. In a small amount of time you will have people asking for 6 or 8 MB, that's for sure. It is not pointless to argue about LN. LN is being designed so that it is decentralized, don't spread misinformation that it will be centralized when that is not the case. So going to 2mb, as planned by core and classic, changes much. It will make people ask for 6 or 8 mb! I disagree. (but core are planning 2mb anyway?) (will "users" generally ask?, if they can transact ok, or mainly classic/unlimited supporter, who have a right to an opinion after all, and will be somewhat appeased. i concede, there will come a time when larger blocks are asked for, but that is a different story in a dynamic situation) I want 2mb because it is achievable, is in the roadmap of core and classic, is the most obvious option, could easily cope with continued growth for the foreseeable, is not divisive or partisan, and I want to know there is a buffer for emergencies or rapid growth. I dont want segwit, sorry. (i seem to be on my own on this?) Core want segwit and 2mb. Big blockers? I just want 2mb, before anything else. Before segwit. |
|
|
|
I actually had to buy a few after this email hit me, maybe this coin is not a flash in the pan.
NeuCoin to eliminate 50% of coin supply and
complete consumer distribution within three years
Three months after launch of its first consumer apps, NeuCoin has reached over 275,000 users and is growing at over 8,000 users a day, on track to acquire 2 million users by year-end 2016.
The NeuCoin foundations have determined that mass user adoption can be reached faster and with fewer tokens distributed than expected; therefore, to maximize NeuCoin’s value, the foundations’ holdings will be cut from 3.2B to 1B in the next several weeks by destroying 2.2B coins, decreasing the entire coin supply by 50%. A revised mining participation forecast puts expected total supply in 10 years at 10B rather than 100B as previously projected.
NeuCoin’s founding principle was distribution of the cryptocurrency to all participants in proportion to the value and utility they add. Over the past year, the NeuCoin foundations have distributed tokens in numerous ways:
Surveys, questionnaires, feedback programs and referral bonuses
Sale-restricted NeuCoins to the founding team, angel investors, service providers and strategic partners
A presale to the crypto-community in exchange for Bitcoin
Proof-of-stake and proof-of-work mining rewards
The GetNeuCoin tutorial-game and Growth Accounts at MyNeuCoin
The NeuCoin-integrated Facebook game Solitaire Racer
A tipping and user reward program with Jango, a free music site with 7M monthly users
This wide-ranging experience in distributing a cryptocurrency has taught NeuCoin valuable lessons:
Consumer fraud is a massive challenge! To combat fraud, user rewards must be small and even then require significant amounts of time to earn.
The clearest path to mass adoption is to partner with successful online services who would like to reward their users with NeuCoins for utilizing their service - like a loyalty point program. NeuCoin has implemented this type of program with Jango and is currently optimizing it in preparation for rolling it out with other large partners.
Important crypto ecosystem partners such as exchanges, payment processors, crypto-gambling services, etc. need to see a large NeuCoin user base, but don’t need to be given large NeuCoin bounties themselves.
In addition, over the past six months, members of the crypto community have raised two main critiques of NeuCoin’s design that the NeuCoin team and foundations consider valid:
Overall coin supply and future growth are too high
Foundations own too much of the total coin supply for too long
Given all of the above, the NeuCoin foundations recently made several strategic decisions that are intended to increase the value of the cryptocurrency as well as accelerate its effective decentralization:
First and foremost, given the learnings that fewer coins need to be distributed per person to consumers, and that ecosystem partners do not require large rewards, the foundations will destroy 70% of their NeuCoin holdings over the next few weeks. This cuts the current total coin supply by roughly 50% to 2B and cuts the projected coin supply in 10 years to 10B (due to much lower projected proof-of-stake mining participation by consumers relative to the foundation’s 100% mining rate).
Second, user acquisition will be accelerated. Given the smaller number of foundation coins and the efficiency of NeuCoin’s simplified partner distribution program, the foundation will aim to distribute its holdings to consumers in 3 years rather than 10.
Third, given the sharpened focus on distributing foundation holdings almost entirely to consumers, the decision was made to merge the three NeuCoin foundations into one - the NeuCoin Growth Foundation.
Lastly, in order to offset their increased percentage ownership of the total coin supply, the NeuCoin founders will forfeit the 200M NeuCoins they were to receive during the second and third year after launch, and all restricted coins held by NeuCoin founders, team, angel and seed investors will have their sales restrictions lengthened from 5 to 10 years.
BS (I see what your thinking but.. founders 200m neucoin was conditional on voting being implemented. Will voting still be implemented? ) |
|
|
|
Anyone of you had this kind of situation ? personally,whenever I start speaking about Bitcoin and how it will go to the moon and that kind of stuff , some of people start mocking (Friends , Family etc ..) .
I personally don't know how to respond in most cases honestly , I just believe bitcoin will become successful .
You think that's bad, espouse about Bitcoin goin' to da moon around fellow Bitcoiners if you wanna get shunned some more. You're putting yourself in the position to getting ridiculed. Haha. (not related to OmegaStarScream, AFAIK) |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, being worked on. ALT coins unlimited.
|
|
|
|
This thread shouldn't be in the tech section, it should be in general discussion bs, where there is a thread with the same title.  |
|
|
|
2mb now (6 months ?). No segwit yet. Nothing else yet.
Couldn't be simpler. "2MB right meow" isn't as simple as just turning a dial from 1 to 2. Complex changes to the signature structure (IE restrictions) are also required, in order to put a (shitty) band-aid on a problem segwit actually fixes. If you could learn the basic facts of the matter before spewing your wishful thinking all over the forum, that would be great.  Ok, sorry. I try not to spew all over the forum. see my post count.  edit, (to save posting again  ) Yeah, right meow in 6 months, if the will was there. It's on every ones list anyway |
|
|
|
|
Core or classic (or XT or unlimited, or for that matter .... )
They are all full of shlt conflict of interest, as you would expect when there is money involved.
They got their own agendas.
The big argument here, in bitcoin, seems to be about "who's side you on?",
not which "bits" of ideas work form each side and are right for Bitcoin. (how decentralisation should be)
I don't consider myself core or classic, I don't trust the personnel. Not now. (TBF i don't know enough about them, not slandering)
I now want 2mb blocks to cope with increased users. (i previously did NOT want a raise, not for the sake of it. I don't buy coffee)
(completely doable. implemented on it's own, "probably" easily achievable through concensus)
I do not want segwit sidechain BS. That is a manipulation by core. (?)
I do not want a further increased blocksize planned. That is classic manipulation. (?)
(the list of do not want goes on)
I don't want either group (or others) thinking they have vito over Bitcoin.
They don't.
I conclude, 2mb now (6 months ?). No segwit yet. Nothing else yet.
Couldn't be simpler.
Core could do this. Classic could do this. Anyone could do this?
Stop tampering with my Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
OP "Ok now this is a remote situation, and I get it , blassic wants a 2-4-8 mb block size, and the situation with 1 TB block size will be far in the future.
snip
This means that if the block size becomes say 64mb in the foreseeable say 6-7 years that would mean.....
snip
So if the Classic people want eventually 64-128-256 mb blocks, then this singularity will become inevitable, and it would destroy decentralized bitcoin as we know it.
This is another huge flaw Classic has, but it has been swept under the rug, so I`m here to expose this flaw."
Thanks for exposing this flaw.
Can't we just have bitcoin2mb
Not Classic, not Core, not Unlimited. not XT.
Not segwit, not RBF, not sidechains.
They are all partisan, likely corrupted, all flawed.
For now,
Just 2mb (with input cap?) nothing else.
|
|
|
|
updated OP and added a new Con
"2MB is still not nearly enough block space to compete with other payment processors like VISA"
Doubling bloc size to 2mb? And your listing that as a con, cos it's not better than visa? FFS. |
|
|
|
I like CIYAM. He's grumpier than I am. Wow.  I also agree with his ad sig attitude. And I like his individualism, his strength of mind. And I like his intelligence. I have been trying to post in his support. I failed. No post. I just don't agree with his take on the way forward, any more, sorry. I don't even want to get technical, CIYAM will wipe the floor with me. I doubt CIYAM will therefore hold me in any regard. Unfortunately. I didn't want a block size increase. I think I do now. A limited increase. (1.5) 2mb. If it is "easily" doable. I understand, in the scheme of things, it is. Leave segwit for now. (and hopefully forever) 2mb is needed, safe, obvious, and simplistic? (needed for the steady growth we have watched over the years, as I think David R said) |
|
|
|
|
2) Improved user experience,
( no more threads about a TX taking a long time to get confirmations )
temporary effect, when usages increases we will eventually be back to full blocks faced with this same issue
Yeah, eventually we will be back to full blocks.
Maybe we could be ready to hard fork again by then.
Maybe it would be more comfortable 2nd time.
The filling of blocks has been a nice steady climb.
First full 1mb block I saw yesterday.
Now they 998.8 a lot.
Its been smooth and steady.
2 mb hard limit, fuck segwit. It don't really care who implements it. I trust none of them anymore.
Let the miners slowly, or quickly raise their block sizes to 2 mb, as has happened so far at 1mb.
Perfect.
|
|
|
|
I don't understand. You talk me about pools, but rizlarolla said me that the PoS pools, what I was looking for in fact, isn't available yet. On the other hand, can I stake on my Raspberry Pi 2 ? I'd like someone to help me if he can for installing Decred on it.
There are PoW pools and a PoS pool (testnet only currently). The original thinking was that a stake pool would be critical to the network's survival. Many people have, however, opted for a solo stake mining approach (and successfully so).There is a guide for this here. Thankfully, the network is doing fine in that regard. Getting multiple independent mainnet stake pools up will be important to the maturity of the network, but the sky isn't falling without one available right at this moment. So when the same fudders/trolls say it's a big deal - it's really not. Solo stake mining is functioning perfectly well. However, that is not ideal, which is why mainnet stake pools are necessary in the longer-term (the network will have them in the shorter-term). snip Many people have opted to solo stake? Only 36% of airdrop have been moved, so I'm guessing 64% definitely ain't staking. How many of the 36% are staking? No pool may not be affecting the network. That was never my issue. It will effect the number of decred bring up devs, including _ingsoc, will stake. Considering bring up devs INTEND to over stake (in the guise of securing the network), then no PoS pool will "help" bring up devs achieve this. And bring up devs, including _ingsoc, will receive even more free decred. This is the "stake mining process". It wont bother _ingsoc. He will receive his share of the spoils. _ingsoc, how many decred have you and the bring up devs staked so far? What % of total PoS rewards staked is that? Hi _ingsoc. Just wondering how the stake mining process is going. (In order to secure the network, you plan to "overstake", more than 50% tickets and PoS rewards) Happy days? Do you know how many decred you and the bring up devs have staked so far? What % of total PoS rewards have _ingsoc & c0 staked so far? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Hey, havent seen a thread, so i am opening this one, to discuss, speculate,... Decred (DCR) coin. What are its benefits? Why do you buy it?
Dude all you have to do is search Decred and you find the official thread. So this one is pointless. Speculating thread should be moved to altcoin discussions not in the Announcement section. Good point. But bearex came from there to open this thread. Not sure this thread is pointless any more, it's been hijacked. Oh, am I being evicted? |
|
|
|
|
It's gone mighty quiet on decred ANN thread.
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290358.4000
I don't know weather to trouble anonymous _ingsoc again, about the extra PoS % he is making.
(in order to secure the network, of course)
anonymous _ingsoc posted some hours ago, saying he feared to mention the stake pool?
Strange. Why not communicate. (not just to me?)
I guess I'll give anonymous _ingsoc another day, doesn't look like anyone else is too bothered.
Then I'll have to ask again.
Or I might get impatient.
|
|
|
|
I like it. And probably was the Airdrop the one with the biggest worth ever: around 1 Bitcoin for every participant. This way a very good Start! Another total bs coin aimed at the gullible. The 1 btc airdrop to each "eligible" participants was a good shill investment. Good illusion, upheld by c0 btc. Seen all this before. The new scam coin. On par with neucoin. decred "mod" anonymous F _ingsoc leading the scam. Launch delayed due to my unpaid, unrecognised efforts on slowing down this scam. Oh, your efforts delayed launch? Are you full of s*!t? rizz yr an idiot! This is decred, the new bitcoin, obviously. c0, bitcorn devs said so. They gave me "1 btc" worth. Hero's, one and all. 'specially anonymous F _ingsoc. A made up, anonymous, self claimed soc. what could go wrong here? You need to chill rizz. c0 devs "earn't" their 840,000 decred over years of work. ok, they couldn't get a wallet together, or a stake pool, or a block explorer, (until you trolled rizz) And they will earn many more hundreds of thousands of $ this year, guaranteed, for no work, from PoS on the airdrop, on top of their half prlced prelaunch allocation, and the dev pot is empty. But so what? Who's gonna notice. Who's gonna do math. Get in, get out, what is your problem man? Just shilling.  Yeah, my efforts to get a block explorer and PoS pool. _ingsoc delayed launch to implement these features.  Mostly a waste of my time that was! A basic explorer at launch, but still no stake pool. I thought _ingsoc more or less promised. _ingsoc now says, weeks later, a pool is not so important as he thought, because the network is secure. The bring up devs have a "stake mining process" in operation. They stake most all PoS rewards. I do not know what % of PoS rewards _ingsoc & c0 are getting because that is almost entirely in their hands. But I suspect it is a very large %. After all, _ingsoc & c0 have stated that they plan to do this. More free, bonus, undeclared as yet, decred for the founders of this transparent project. I have recently asked _ingsoc what % of Pos rewards he and c0 are achieving. Awaiting reply. Why couldn't _ingsoc & c0 have taken less premine. Then earnt less PoS, then earnt less extra PoS in the planned "stake mining process". Or at least been honest about all this pre launch and declared all this in their "repayment for bring up" It was all expected, planned and forseeable. I did say. (i said greed will kill this coin, amongst other things) I said, _ingsoc & c0 own a bigger % of total ever to be issued decred than Satoshi does of bitcoin! But clearly that is not enough. They need more. They must be quite special to deserve that, anonymous _ingsoc & c0. Quite special indeed. |
|
|
|
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/Need a blocksize increase now. But we're all retarded. People will stop using BTC when it takes 3 days for their tx's to confirm Did you try to send btc, with proper fees, before opening this thread? This backlog seems to be low fee based, therefore not really anything to do with block size. Block size may be a pressing issue. But this is not why, as explained by Lauda and others, and now me. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
