Fuck off. Bitcoin unlimited doesn't exist. LOL |
|
|
|
-snip-
XT/Unlimiturd = Worst Altcoins Ever.
What's your take on when we do the segwitness altcoin? You are confusing soft forks (segwitness) and hard forks (XT/Unlimiturd). I don't think segwit will happen anytime Soon. If/when it's implemented, it will be because of a genuine need as agreed/recognized by the socioeconomic majority, not because of a whining Gavinista minority of Redditurd bury brigades. So you disagree with hdbuck and MP. How about when we fork to a modest 2MiB while segwit is tested? Altcoin? 2MB = HARD FORK = ALTCOIN = FAIL Bitcoin hardforked already. |
|
|
|
The Bigblockers fighted there against censorship - and won. The Smallblockers fight for censorship. That's the difference. |
|
|
|
Thanks to /u/bitcoinworld for demonstrating /r/btc is a haven for witch hunting, public lynchings, and mob rule.
An euphemism of an uncensored place. The infiltration failed. Sensor ship destroyed. |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin can do both, and that these different aspects of Bitcoin actually reinforce each other. I also do not think Bitcoin will become a world reserve currency without experiencing mass adoption as a currency for the people first, history also certainly supports this theory as well.
It doesn't. Typically any form of money that is not fiat started gaining traction as a currency only because people tended to hold it as they considered it valuable. You should check your history, gold and silver coins have been used as a currency and a commodity for the majority of our known history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_coinYou're really dense aren't ya? Gold didn't start off as a currency but as ornament, jewelry & collectibles hence the argument that people first have to find value in a commodity and hold it before it gains traction as a currency. Gold became money when it was demanded as tribute (tax). The war lords demanded it to produce weapons. http://www.tutanchamun-game.de/downloads/bilderKatalog/images/dolch.jpghttp://www.goldseiten.de/content/kolumnen/download/pcm-17.pdfRight so gold was first hoarded and collected because it made nice weapon. Thanks for supporting my point! The foundation and essence of all kind of money is DEBT. Dr Paul C. Martin: Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence.
The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force.
The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical
because the possession of it guarantees property of it.
Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute).
The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin).
Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same.https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-178#post-6388 |
|
|
|
I think Bitcoin can do both, and that these different aspects of Bitcoin actually reinforce each other. I also do not think Bitcoin will become a world reserve currency without experiencing mass adoption as a currency for the people first, history also certainly supports this theory as well.
It doesn't. Typically any form of money that is not fiat started gaining traction as a currency only because people tended to hold it as they considered it valuable. You should check your history, gold and silver coins have been used as a currency and a commodity for the majority of our known history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_coinYou're really dense aren't ya? Gold didn't start off as a currency but as ornament, jewelry & collectibles hence the argument that people first have to find value in a commodity and hold it before it gains traction as a currency. Gold became money when it was demanded as tribute (tax). The war lords demanded it to produce weapons. http://www.tutanchamun-game.de/downloads/bilderKatalog/images/dolch.jpghttp://www.goldseiten.de/content/kolumnen/download/pcm-17.pdf |
|
|
|
did "teh mass" ever had gold in any meaningful way?
hmnope.
Yes, once upon a time when gold was money. Now gold 2.0 is money. |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER you use ur tongue prettier than a $20 whore.  Our Front National / Monero Troll is still trying to destroy the reputation of the small blockers with his Avatar and his Hooligan appearence. Which is really not necessary anymore. Everybody knows that they act criminal. "In a $6.6B economy, it is criminal to let the Service undergo an ECE
without warning users loudly, months in advance: "Dear users, ECE has
accelerated potential due to developers preferring a transition from TFM to
FFM."http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not scale efficiently, but it certainly can scale. We just need to increase the blocksize. To answer your question, this does require a hard fork, hard forks are the only way to increase the blocksize.
Hard forks are also an important governance mechanism within Bitcoin which allow us to resolve fundamental differences and disagreements, even if that might mean splitting Bitcoin, at least that is better then tyranny of the majority. Go invent your own altcoin if you hate the Core developers with such venom. Not necessary. Core is creating the Altcoin. Or do you think Blockstream can win against Coinbase? |
|
|
|
Talks about loud, vocal minority. Links to forum with almost 300 members! Did you read the list in the post that I linked to? Those people are not part of that forum... they are the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem. They're major banking parasites freeloaders indeed. Coinbase. Banking puppets Xapo. Wences IMO is one of the few legit bloke in the industry. Most likely was lied to by Gavin and Mike and urged to show "unity" with the "industry" BitGo. Web Wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin. Circle. Goldman Sachs puppets Blockchain.info Broken Web wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin. ItBit. Banking puppets Miners are rallying behind Core. I guess that sums it up. So which side are you on? The zionist banking incumbents or the cypherpunks? I know where my allegiance lies. Yes, we know: Front National. But Bitcoin is Capitalism, not National Socialism/Socialist Nationalism. |
|
|
|
They also don't understand what politics is and how everything human is also political.
Hint: It isn't what you see on CNBC and Fox News
Now, now Veritas, no need to create suckpuppet accounts to spam the thread  Yeah, an account created 33 months ago with an obviously different writing style and 600 posts is definitely a sock puppet of Veritas. Such an astute observation, nice one =) brg444 late adopter jumped the train a year later at all time high prices. That's what makes him angry and aggressive. |
|
|
|
Good to know that a BIP is in the works, though obviously I disagree with your assertion that we are not presently approaching network capacity, it is becoming quite clear that we are nearing that point now.
As you can see from this chart the growth in transaction volume is consistent, almost even exponential.
I would suggest the tipping point where we can start to consider a fee market developing and rasing tx fee prices would be a day of full blocks(whichever the limits miners impose as ultimately they can lower the limit or reject tx's) https://www.quandl.com/data/BCHAIN/AVBLS-Bitcoin-Average-Block-SizeWe are still not there yet but it is also perfectly reasonable to take Gavin's suggestion that we should prepare for capacity limits beforehand. I take a middle view and suggest we should be prepared to implement a hard fork to raise the limit as a temporary bump (perhaps 2-4-8 ) if we have a day of full blocks and the fee market starts to raise prices unreasonably with negative effects on our ecosystem. Paypal and Visa sometimes have outages , and it wouldn't be the end of the world if bitcoin had a brief hiccup and I like the pressure to incentivize more creative solutions (segwit/ln/relay network/ect...) that the fear is creating. People who need it will still be using Bitcoin even if fees a 100x larger than what they are today. This is really a non-issue. The fee-market science fiction that those kids@core intend to enforce is ridiculous. RBF means DBF: Destroy By Fee. The entire RBF-fee-market plan is the result of your complete misunderstanding of basic economics. Bitcoin is in the "move money around" market. There are plenty of competitors who will happily move money around better than Bitcoin is doing, for lower fees, now you got the outcome you wanted.https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3wgm20/why_payouts_didnt_execute_today/cxzln2q?context=3 |
|
|
|
I remember one of the core dev said a few month ago that we should wait until the block become full and see how the situation develop and then start to apply measures accordingly, I still think this is a good approach. People won't die because the banks are closed during week end, similarly, if the block become too congested, they will just reduce the transaction frequency and plan their transaction accordingly,
Yes, they can use Litecoin, Viacoin, Dogecoin, Monero, instead of Bitcoin, where the stream is blocked. This seems to be a great strategy of the core devs. The Altcoiners should applaud it, and they do. |
|
|
|
..
Your money is on the wrong coin. You need a dark coin that is only accepted in the dark economy. Fork off! |
|
|
|
It sorts like a way to efficiently compress the weight of blocks by removing something that's not needed when possible.
As merely one question, can we really consider the signature as something that's not needed? I get that we're not _eliminating_ the sig, merely putting it in a separate (segregated) container, apart from the rest of the transaction. But any entity that wants to operate bitcoin in a trustless manner is going to need to be able to fully validate each transaction. Such entities will need the signature, right? Accordingly, such entities will need both components, so no data reduction for them, right? Currently, relay nodes verify each transaction before forwarding it, do they not? If they are denied the signature, they can no longer perform this verification. This seems to me to be a drastically altered division of responsibilities. Sure, this may still work, but how do we know whether this is a good repartitioning of the problem? Further, does this open a new attack vector? If 'nodes' are going to stop validating transactions before forwarding them, then there is nothing to stop them from forwarding invalid transactions. What if an attacker were to inject many invalid transactions into the network? Being invalid, they would be essentially free to create in virtually unbounded quantities. If nodes are no longer validating before forwarding, this would result in 'invalid transaction storms', which could consume many times the bandwidth of the relatively small number of actual valid traffic. If indeed this is a valid concern, then this would work exactly contrary to its stated goal of increasing scalability. Note I am not making any claims here, but I am asking questions, prompted from my incomplete understanding of this feature. Some of us are suffering from a sort of whiplash... we've been told (by some factions and their hangers-on) for months that raising max block size even to 2MB is highly dangerous for decentralization. But now, completely reorganizing some of the basic functions of the protocol, with a (somewhat unnecessary) requirement that there be no hard fork... has led us to the point where the same group with those concerns... is offering a fairly drastic solution that effectively raises the requirements for fully validating nodes to a 4MB(or 2?) max equivalent. Yes, this is a very interesting scaling strategy. Quadruple the cap to get a double throughput is okay. Quadruple the cap to get a quadruple throughput is not okay. |
|
|
|
Finally cleans up issues with signature TX malleability, makes fraud proofs viable for real SPV security and incidentally frees up some capacity breathing room for the near term (2-3MB per block), who could argue against it? Unless there is some truly objectionable security risk discovered it should be soft-forked in ASAP. A few niggles about 'cleanest' way to do that but hopefully that wont turn into too much slide-rule swinging.
One issue is that if the "effective max block size" with SW is 4 MB, then the maximum bandwidth that a full node will have to deal with is the same as if we had a hardfork to 4 MB blocks. With the current way that the network functions and is laid out, this might be too much bandwidth. Maybe this could be somewhat addressed with IBLT, weak blocks, and other tech, but that stuff doesn't exist yet. I think that there's basically agreement that 2 MB would be safe, though. So reduce the actual block limit to 500KByte? (effective max 2 MB). 4 MB effective is probably a tad too large for the current bandwidth tech. now but I'm skeptical how often it would be hit in the near term. It is a worst case assuming 1MB of TX data and maximum number of signature data associated (high number of multi-sig, etc) in a single block but needs to be tested out for security implications what effect such a nasty block would have on the system of course. no need to guess or estimate. actual data are available. take a look at Pieter's tweet: https://twitter.com/pwuille/status/673710939678445571?s=091.75 for normal tx, more for others e.g. multisig. take into account that normal account represent more than 80% of the total. SW = quadruple the cap to get a double throughput Is this formula correct? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
