http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730The service works by submitting bitcoin transactions sent to or from any BTCC wallet address directly to BTCC's mining pool for rapid confirmation. BTCC's mining pool accounts for approximately 13% of the global bitcoin network's hashing power.
BlockPriority prioritises all BTCC's customers' transactions, including those who pay zero transaction fees. Customers who pay lower transaction fees on other exchanges or wallet services may have to wait before the bitcoin network confirms their transactions, said BTCC.
|
|
|
|
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December In my view, Bitcoin XT is the best option I've seen so far. Not just because it has working code, but also because it has a simple implementation that is easy to understand, the block-size increases seem about right to me, and I have confidence in the people behind the project. My preference at this point would be to have Gavin step up as the final decision-maker on Bitcoin XT, and have the industry move to that solution with help from Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik and others that wish to do so.”
The CEO believes an upgrade is urgently needed in order for the Bitcoin network to handle a sudden increase of Bitcoin usage. As such, Armstrong emphasized that Coinbase will not wait for consensus to form among the Bitcoin development community.
“We will upgrade regardless of whether Bitcoin Core is updated,” Armstrong said. “Capacity planning is something you should try to get ahead of. Growth can be unpredictable, and I want to remove all blockers to Bitcoin's success. I've been disappointed to see how slow Bitcoin Core has moved on this issue, and we're open to switching forks.”
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-bip-is-the-best-proposal-we-ve-seen-so-far-1446584055 |
|
|
|
|
Title says it all.
Buckle up.
|
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3j8rg1/an_open_letter_to_the_bitcoin_community_from_the/cunzj9zI wasn't asked to sign it. The first time I saw it was today. Regardless, now I've read it, the letter contains a few statements I would have found it tough to agree with. It refers to "the consensus building process". There is no such process. This point has been hammered home over and over again by now, but unfortunately, the Bitcoin Core developers seem to be in denial about it. Whenever we ask somebody to write down this process or tell us what it is, most of them go silent and Adam points to "BIP 1", which doesn't specify any decision making process or means for resolving disagreement. It suggests a continuation of the mentality that every decision has one clearly correct answer on which literally everyone can agree if only there is enough time spent talking. That's clearly not the case here. I'm honestly not sure what else I can do at this point. The Core developers continue to insist that they have some deeply scientific, academic and professional decision making process. They just won't say what it is. They will say, though, "give it more time". It says: We ask the community to not prejudge and instead work collaboratively to reach the best outcome through the existing process and the supporting workshops
This sounds fantastic - there is an existing process and the workshops will support that process. But this just continues to reflect confusion around what these workshops are actually intended to do. The website FAQ says: https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/Absolutely no decisions are made at workshops
There will probably be no debate Additionally it says governance will not be discussed. So we have a project that has no formal process (or even an informal one really), yet claims the workshops will help support that process, whilst simultaneously saying that the workshops won't involve any decision making or governance discussion. I find this to be a rather inconsistent approach. The final statement I'd disagree with is this one: We believe this is the way forward and reinforces the existing review process that has served the Bitcoin development community (and Bitcoin in general) well to date The process that served Bitcoin well to date was Satoshi being maintainer, and then Gavin. That was the case up until April of last year. Lots of people really don't like this idea because it sounds so fragile, but for most of Bitcoin's history technical disputes were resolved through Gavin making proposals, listening to feedback and then making a decision in reasonable amounts of time. Bitcoin was not being served by this non-existent fairy tale process that the existing Bitcoin Core guys want so badly to believe in.
|
|
|
|
 It is inevitable. All major players will support XT because it scales their operations. I'm pretty sure Mike and Gavin have been approached by them to release the code in the wild so they can use it. The free market will prevail. |
|
|
|
|
There is an unnecessary ongoing war and fear mongering over the community about bitcoinXT. What people need to realize is that the only thing that will lead to a majority of honest node switching to bitcoinXT is a bloat in the blockchain itself where businesses won't be able to process the transactions they need due to a fail of bitcoin core to deliver proper scaling on time. BitcoinXT is just a fall back plan in case of a bitcoin core failure and will happen naturally if there is a need in the market. If bitcoin core delivers then nothing will happen. I don't see the point of so much fear mongering over hard forking. THERE IS AN ECONOMIC INCENTIVE TO REACH CONSENSUS NO MATTER THE OUTCOME. Releasing the code in the wild might not be pleasing some but it relieved the stress of many people about their concerns over a bitcoin core failure. If that concern reaches consensus then be it!
|
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h424p/why_is_bitcoin_forking/cu43w4aRunning XT at this time is equivalent with running Core. It's the same network, and the same Bitcoins. At some point in the future, if 75% mining majority is reached (but not before January 2016), the network will split whenever a miner creates a block larger than 1MB. This will not be accepted by Core unless they adopt a large blocks patch, but will be accepted by XT, and at this point there will effectively be two chains.
Running XT means that you will always be on the largest (75%+) chain, regardless of whether the fork actually happens or not. Running Core means that you will be left behind if a 75% majority is reached. Regardless of which version you run, coins will be safe (on both chains) as long as you acquired them prior to the fork, and for some time the chains will largely mirror each other, but eventually they will diverge due to different coinbases (mining rewards).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
