|
I would also like to point out that I made this thread because I am now thinking the pros of Segwit is to fix some issues in Bitcoin like the malleability issue and others that would make it more robust and secure. The scaling part, I could now see some pros in Bitcoin Unlimited's dynamic block sizes but only up to a fixed point. If it is 3, 4 or 5 megabytes, I do not know. That is another argument for another day.
|
|
|
|
|
What if the Core developers make a compromise of having dynamic block sizes but with a limit of up to 4mb and have Segwit activated at the same time? I am sure there would be a need for a block size increase both with and without an off chain transaction layer.
|
|
|
|
I know there is fear among the big blockers about it becoming like Paypal 2.0, but what if the system is a level playing field and an open one? I am sure Blockstream does not have a monopoly in setting up a payment hub service.
They do not have a monopoly, and I don't have any reason to suspect there isn't a level playing field. The main issue for me is the entire market getting a huge boost to solve a problem that is being intentionally created by artificially restricting the main blockchain. This is what is meant when people talk about "turning bitcoin from p2p cash into a settlement network." I do not think that restricting the main blockchain is intentional. The 1MB maxblocksize limit is there as an anti spam measure. The Lightning Network is set up to carry some of the load and could do much more. Later, I believe there will be a need for a block size increase to accomodate the closing of LN's payment channels as they get settled on the main chain. The 1mb blocksize was put there 7 years ago by Satoshi as a temporary measure. LEAVING it there (long after it served its purpose) is openly admitted as intentional by core as their economic policy is a 'healthy fee market'. They do not deny this. Ok thanks for the clarification. But that does not make any sense. Why then are the miners trying to support Bitcoin Unlimited if that will hurt their "healthy fee market"? What do you believe is in it for them if we hard fork to BU? |
|
|
|
Ok. But does it really justify that we all follow the risks that comes with the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? As I read more and more about the topic, it gets more complicated than a simple hard fork and then everyone ends up happy with the outcome. There is now mention of an upgrade on the Proof of Work algorithm making the miners equipment useless. Then there is also the risk of the blockchain splitting in 2 and a dumping war. Maybe we should all follow the compromise and Segwit is that compromise.
segwit isnt its like retrofitting a planes cargo area into extra seating so that parents can throw their kids into the cargo area so that more adults can fit into the main seating area. issues. 1. it only works if adults volunteer to move their kids into cargo-hold by changing their tickets.(moving funds to different keypairs) 2. last year only obese people weighting upto 4000so of a 20,000so plane limit could get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. not so good for other passengers if 5 obese tried to get on 3. this year extremely obese people weighing 16000so of a 80,000so plane limit can get on. good for many weighing under 100so.. extremely not so good for other passengers if 5 extra extremely obese got on changing the design of the plane hoping adults will change their tickets rather than have their kids next to them and also foolishly letting even more bloated adultswithkids gets on does not help. yes having a plane with more first class seating could seem hard.. but then the team calling it hard are the ones now forcing in their cargo-hold seating with empty hopes. and threatening to nuke the airport if they dont allow the new retrofitted planes to use the airport is even worse. funny part is that it would require everyone to upgrade (hard) to achieve the threats. so if the segwit PoW threat is needing community to upgrade either way. they might aswell do it the less violent way and let people have more first class seating. thus not need to threaten to nuke the airport.. rather than retrofit planes and nuke the airport.. in short saying hard is bad, lets trojan horse something.. and if trojan horse is rejected, go super super super hard. just to avoid hard. the silly flip flopping tactics amazes me Ok but does it all really make the the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited worth it? It is buggy and the developers behind it are not as good as the Core developers. I believe the answer to that question is "no". The miners are making a big mistake if they help implement the buggy BU. |
|
|
|
|
I am on thr same boat as you. But arguing with franky1 and jonald_fyookball have opened my eyes a little bit. There is a need for a slightly bigger blocksize but I do not agree the miners should have the power to decide.
|
|
|
|
$2000 by the end of this year still realistic bitcoin would touch to to this milestone easily. At the moment it's little unstable but will be back on it's way to the moon.
Not anymore in my opinion. The block chain might split into 2, some group of whales is spamming the network and now there is a POW upgrade initiative that might create further problems. The odds of that happening is very low. Never be pessimistic, no one is here just to kill bitcoins but everyone working on their known way to further development of bitcoins. I guess all the problems will find a solution very soon and hence we can have $2000+ levels. One important thing, being optimist I wish all these to happen within 2017 itself. Chaos and frustrations are not new to bitcoin ecosystem but overcoming them is always we could expect and as per history bitcoin has done that many times. So bitcoin will do it yet again. Some people believe that they are making Bitcoin better but they are trying to destroy it in the process because their greed and the need for control is getting the better of them. That applies to both sides fighting in the scaling debate. |
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later.  I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go. try to look at from a simple supply and demand persective. Supply = blocksize space demand = transaction by making the supply smaller, prices (fees) will go up. So if someone wants to manipulate the market (spam attack) and make prices go up, obviously its going to easier with a smaller market (smaller blocksize, smaller supply) than with a bigger one.. I hope that isn't too technical. Thank you. But if we have a layer on top of the blockchain for offchain transactions, we would be given an option as an out to avoid doing the transaction on the blockchain and do it off the chain. That is a shallow reason but still very useful. Do you think spamming the blockchain will be discouraged by having bigger blocks? Franky1, I will reply to your post later if I can find the brain cells. |
|
|
|
The top line is that it is a winning strategy overall
If you sell your bitcoins today, you are likely set to lose tomorrow (by letting go a good chance to get rich really quick). On the other hand, if you buy bitcoins now, you will take an opportunity and use the FUD behind the BU split against BU itself and to your advantage by buying low. If the old Bitcoin fails, you will have the new Bitcoin in absolutely the same amount, if the new one fails, you will have the old one which thereby proves its strength, might and power. So getting rid of bitcoins would be a losing strategy while acquiring more is seemingly a winning one whatever way the events are going to unfold in the future. Just keep your bitcoins in your personal wallet so that no one could steal this opportunity from you
You do not think that Bitcoin might make another new low after this rise? You posted this on March 26 when Bitcoin was trading around $940 - $990 and has risen after that. But it is creating another lower high and it is getting ready to go down again if we follow the pattern for this month. It would be better to watch and wait in my opinion, or make low bids to be safe You are confusing something here As much as I discard technical analysis as a viable way for predicting and evaluating future price behavior, I still can't help noting that just one lower high after a few consecutive higher lows mid-to-long term (basically, 250-750-550-1100-750-1300-950) doesn't tell us anything. Strictly speaking, we haven't yet made a new lower high, since we barely touched the support level at 900 dollars per coin (i.e. the support there hasn't yet been broken), and right now we are mostly trading sideways. In fact, we may well yet make a new higher high in the coming weeks (that would be an ATH, obviously). Other than that, the price may go below 900 dollars (say, down to 600 dollars), but it just means that you may be buying up all the way down (personally, that's what I'm prepared to do myself) If you discard technical analysis in evaluating the behavior of the price then what is your reason in suggesting that now is a good time to start buying Bitcoin? Is there a fundamental reason? I have to admit you might be correct because the price have been stable for the past 3 or 4 days. But how do we know for sure it will not go down? Oh, I just noticed that you are the same dude that once claimed that we would never go over 600 dollars per coin I guess you may want to finally read the opening post. If you read it, you would get a clue that the reasons why I suggested to buy now (i.e. then, when the price was still below 1,000 dollars. just in case) had nothing to do with technical analysis. I even doubt if they have anything to do with fundamental analysis as well (though the latter is debatable). Basically, my point comes down to grasping at a rare opportunity where your risks are lower than potential profits. And it is not just lower, they are in fact skewed disproportionately in favor of a win since Bitcoin holders will likely profit in any case, i.e. in the case when Bitcoin Core prevails and in the case when Bitcoin Unlimited succeeds (provided they hold their coins in their personal wallets, of course) Speaking of Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited, I am curious which implementation are you supporting and why. I have been arguing for the cause of Core but honestly I am still undecided. Listening to both sides objectively has made me a little bit confused. |
|
|
|
$2000 by the end of this year still realistic bitcoin would touch to to this milestone easily. At the moment it's little unstable but will be back on it's way to the moon.
Not anymore in my opinion. The block chain might split into 2, some group of whales is spamming the network and now there is a POW upgrade initiative that might create further problems. The odds of that happening is very low. |
|
|
|
If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.
Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.
wondering if you have read this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1846510.msg18377356#msg18377356Ok. But does it really justify that we all follow the risks that comes with the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited? As I read more and more about the topic, it gets more complicated than a simple hard fork and then everyone ends up happy with the outcome. There is now mention of an upgrade on the Proof of Work algorithm making the miners equipment useless. Then there is also the risk of the blockchain splitting in 2 and a dumping war. Maybe we should all follow the compromise and Segwit is that compromise. |
|
|
|
I know there is fear among the big blockers about it becoming like Paypal 2.0, but what if the system is a level playing field and an open one? I am sure Blockstream does not have a monopoly in setting up a payment hub service.
They do not have a monopoly, and I don't have any reason to suspect there isn't a level playing field. The main issue for me is the entire market getting a huge boost to solve a problem that is being intentionally created by artificially restricting the main blockchain. This is what is meant when people talk about "turning bitcoin from p2p cash into a settlement network." I do not think that restricting the main blockchain is intentional. The 1MB maxblocksize limit is there as an anti spam measure. The Lightning Network is set up to carry some of the load and could do much more. Later, I believe there will be a need for a block size increase to accomodate the closing of LN's payment channels as they get settled on the main chain. |
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball, franky1, you have gone too technical and lost me. My pea brain can only handle enough information at a time. I will need to step back and reread your posts later. I request for someone with more technical knowledge for a rebuttal while I try to read their posts. I am learning as I go. |
|
|
|
That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.
It would become pretty expensive to bloat a blockchain that had 32mb blocks. Let's say a transaction is 0.5 kb, that's 2048 x 32 = 65,536 transactions per block. At a nickel a transaction, that would be $3276.80. That's just for one block. That's $19,660.80 an hour, and $471,859.20 a day. But it is still hypothetically possible. Why not maintain the small maxblocksize as an anti spam measure and create an offchain transaction layer built on top that anyone is free to use. I want to ask you, if Blockstream was not involved in any of this, are you open to a smaller maxblocksize and an offchain transaction layer for Bitcoin? Honestly. |
|
|
|
|
If that is the case then there is no answer for the flooding of the mempool. I doubt this will be solved by the dynamic block sizes the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited are proposing. It might only aggravate the problem.
Think about it. This is where an offchain layer makes more sense to pursue.
|
|
|
|
That does not compute. I have just read that the 1MB maxblocksize was added as an anti spam measure. We all know that the flooding of the mempool is because some group is spamming the network, so if we hard fork to an 32MB maxblocksize and some other group is not happy and decide to spam the network that will lead to more blockchain bloat.
someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation with native keys. so that no segwit tx's can fit txdata in the baseblock, thus not hang their sigs outside the baseblock.. thus not even use any of the 3mb extra weight but still have the 'blocks are full' issue. someone making 1mb of spam today will make 1mb of segwit txdata spam filling the baseblock after segwit activation using segwit tx's. so that it has 2mb of txdata+sig spam and still no moral / normal user transactions able to get in inshort: segwit does not stop spam because segwit is reliant on the baseblock. Yes I agree the spamming will not stop as long as there are certain groups who are unhappy with the way things are now. I am sure there will be another group who will be unhappy if we hard fork to bigger blocks and have a new set of developers who may not be popular. If that is a possible scenario then I ask this question from jonald_fyookball's ball comment. At this point, I'd be happy as a peach if everyone just got behind a hardfork to 32mb or 8mb. Will that lead to more blockchain bloat or not? There is also the mining centralization issue that comes with bigger blocks. |
|
|
|
There are lots of predictions about bitcoin price in 2017.Rise in US interest rates,japan accepting bitcoin as payment method and a lot of global factors could create an increase in bitcoin price.Most of the experts predict that bitcoin's price would be $2000 by the end of 2017.
The rise in interest in US, do you consider it an advantage or disadvantage? Can that improve the value of bitcoin considering your $2000 predicted price by the end of the year Bitcoin is not a direct part of the US economy. In fact it is not a direct part of any nation's economy, so any change in economic matter in a country will not directly affect the price of Bitcoin. Some people are overestimating how wide the usage of Bitcoin is. The truth is it does not matter. Bitcoin is a mere speck in the ocean for all the economies of the world combined. If Bitcoin reaches a $1T market cap that might change. |
|
|
|
The top line is that it is a winning strategy overall
If you sell your bitcoins today, you are likely set to lose tomorrow (by letting go a good chance to get rich really quick). On the other hand, if you buy bitcoins now, you will take an opportunity and use the FUD behind the BU split against BU itself and to your advantage by buying low. If the old Bitcoin fails, you will have the new Bitcoin in absolutely the same amount, if the new one fails, you will have the old one which thereby proves its strength, might and power. So getting rid of bitcoins would be a losing strategy while acquiring more is seemingly a winning one whatever way the events are going to unfold in the future. Just keep your bitcoins in your personal wallet so that no one could steal this opportunity from you
You do not think that Bitcoin might make another new low after this rise? You posted this on March 26 when Bitcoin was trading around $940 - $990 and has risen after that. But it is creating another lower high and it is getting ready to go down again if we follow the pattern for this month. It would be better to watch and wait in my opinion, or make low bids to be safe You are confusing something here As much as I discard technical analysis as a viable way for predicting and evaluating future price behavior, I still can't help noting that just one lower high after a few consecutive higher lows mid-to-long term (basically, 250-750-550-1100-750-1300-950) doesn't tell us anything. Strictly speaking, we haven't yet made a new lower high, since we barely touched the support level at 900 dollars per coin (i.e. the support there hasn't yet been broken), and right now we are mostly trading sideways. In fact, we may well yet make a new higher high in the coming weeks (that would be an ATH, obviously). Other than that, the price may go below 900 dollars (say, down to 600 dollars), but it just means that you may be buying up all the way down (personally, that's what I'm prepared to do myself) If you discard technical analysis in evaluating the behavior of the price then what is your reason in suggesting that now is a good time to start buying Bitcoin? Is there a fundamental reason? I have to admit you might be correct because the price have been stable for the past 3 or 4 days. But how do we know for sure it will not go down? |
|
|
|
Frankie, that wasn't my understanding of how LN works (not saying i'm right .cause im just
learning how this is all supposed to work...) but the point is: if Alice already has a channel
with Bob , I dont need to open a channel with Bob myself cause i can just go through Alice.
What am I missing, or why are we not on the same page here?
Yes. That is why it is important to only open payment channels with people that you trust. You would not want to be the person connecting payments with a criminal or a terrorist. You do not want the FBI knocking on your door. Hehe. Well, there's 2 possibilities that I can envision right now (there may be more) #1:) You have big companies, lets say Blockstream, that provides a 'blockstream' channel... so if I want to send a payment to Bob, and we both have a channel with Blockstream, we could do it through them. #2:) You have some kind of smart wallet that automatically accepts third party requests on your behalf , and it handles all the details so you do not have to trust them, and if one of those third parties happens to be an unscrupulous character, well you can certain easily claim plausible deniability just as if some anonmymous person was downloading a torrent...all the wallet sees is an IP address. Obviously we want to stay private, get more privacy, not less. EDIT: If we cannot describe exactly how scenario #2 is going to be implemented (and we can't describe another scenario), then the alternative is that you are going to be using a big company (like Blockstream) cough paypal2.0 cough and relying on them to transact. so.... i am wondering how deeply people who are really excited about LN have thought this through and would like to hear others' thoughts. I like your thinking about scenario #2. A 3rd party service or a "smart wallet" is a more convenient way for ordinary users to have an extra layer that does not directly connect anyone with questionable users of the system. I know there is fear among the big blockers about it becoming like Paypal 2.0, but what if the system is a level playing field and an open one? I am sure Blockstream does not have a monopoly in setting up a payment hub service. |
|
|
|
I think by this coming months bitcoin would be stable at price ranges 900$-1300$ and will move up and down between these price range. After that there will be two possible outcomes. It will either be a dump to below 900$ which is very likely to happen if there will be a news that will bring price down to that price. If not, The other possible outcome is a pump to above 1300$ which I think won't happen unless the debate between Bitcoin Unlimited and Segwit is resolved.
I have exactly the same sentiment as you. The scaling debate between Core and Bitcoin Unlimited could go on longer than we anticipate. This is not a problem that will be solved in 2 or 3 months, this problem might last more than a year in my opinion with the reluctance shown by the mining pools and miners in what implementation to support. In the mean time some group will keep spamming the network making confirmations take longer than usual. |
|
|
|
The top line is that it is a winning strategy overall
If you sell your bitcoins today, you are likely set to lose tomorrow (by letting go a good chance to get rich really quick). On the other hand, if you buy bitcoins now, you will take an opportunity and use the FUD behind the BU split against BU itself and to your advantage by buying low. If the old Bitcoin fails, you will have the new Bitcoin in absolutely the same amount, if the new one fails, you will have the old one which thereby proves its strength, might and power. So getting rid of bitcoins would be a losing strategy while acquiring more is seemingly a winning one whatever way the events are going to unfold in the future. Just keep your bitcoins in your personal wallet so that no one could steal this opportunity from you
You do not think that Bitcoin might make another new low after this rise? You posted this on March 26 when Bitcoin was trading around $940 - $990 and has risen after that. But it is creating another lower high and it is getting ready to go down again if we follow the pattern for this month. It would be better to watch and wait in my opinion, or make low bids to be safe. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
