that scammer don't run the forum... there are way more scammers on bitcointalk.org then on the other fourm, do you feel your associated with the sammers on bitcointalk? |
|
|
|
the bigger bitcoin gets the more incentive there is in participating in the network.
it could be that node count will continue to rise even if every hobbyist home user is forced off because of 20MB blocks.
What your retarded logic doesn't understand is that node count is irrelevant if all the nodes are put inside the same building. 1000 nodes distributed across the globe in random people's bedrooms is way more decentralized and safe than a million nodes running in a couple datacenters. i'm suggesting 1000's of nodes in random people's bedrooms, will be replaced with, 1000's of nodes in random companies offices. |
|
|
|
side note: I think alot of hashing power is staying on Core because it seem controversial to "undermine the core devs". this most incorrect way of thinking needs to stop. competing implementation are perfectly valid and should be welcome.
1. This is not the web in which you can choose Safari, Mozilla or Chrom(e/ium) where these 3 programs all operate under the same web / http protocol. 2. The "competing implementations" in our case, is " your web sucks, I'll have my own web - along with my own browser". 3. Satoshi didn't even welcome ...compatible implementations, let alone competition of incompatible ones. PS. The web evolves by something like a "...soft-forking" of new web clients and web servers who support new features like the HTML5 video player... Those running older browsers can access content without these features but not content with it (they'll have to revert to a flash player in this example). They can always upgrade to get access to newer features but the web is always the same. There are no two webs. +1 i think its interesting to note tho that: " your web sucks I'll have my own web - along with my own browser " is the general sentiment of 2015 -2016 " its about Bitcoin not bitcoin " everyone is building their own blockchains. but soft forking and throwing layers on top, has allowed the web to scale remarkably well. bitcoin will follow this model and will probably come out the winner. my " HF are natural evolution " sentiment is probably wrong... |
|
|
|
|
iguana.
this full node has promis, it plans to leverage the P2P torrent network to incress dwl speeds of the blockchain, and uses some fancy tricks to validate blocks of TX's at blinding speeds.
i believe all problems can be overcome. either with burt force, or fancy tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
the bigger bitcoin gets the more incentive there is in participating in the network.
it could be that node count will continue to rise even if every hobbyist home user is forced off because of 20MB blocks.
|
|
|
|
Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead. Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.
its only just begun now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit. obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner. maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows... if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT It seems to me that if one group controls 94% of the hashpower, and another controls 6% of the hash power resulting in a stand-off, it is highly likely that the group with 94% would be much more likely to be able to (temporarily or permanently) expand their hash power to break the stalemate. expensive but doable... nothing is stopping the other side from matching the incress in order to keep >5% Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead. Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.
its only just begun now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit. obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner. maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows... if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT >be a classicist, want 2 mb blocksize. >possibility to go to 1.75 mb blocksize by embracing the seg life. >would rather the blocksize stay at 1mb forever than embracing superior segwit. It seems pretty obvious to me that some will switch to accept segwit softfork instead of waiting for something that will never happen. i guess that's likely, if it comes down to a stalemate ( veto power on both sides ) i guess some will switch simply to break the stalemate. in anycase both sides agree to segwit, so it shouldn't be all that hard to get 95% miners onboard side note: I think alot of hashing power is staying on Core because it seem controversial to "undermine the core devs". this most incorrect way of thinking needs to stop. competing implementation are perfectly valid and should be welcome. in a perfect world devs, all devs, should have no association with any one implementation, they simply all work on providing options. the network votes on these option without considering the devs "feelings". |
|
|
|
Why does this thread still exist? it's over; classicism is dead. Sorry /r/btctards, dump and get out of the way.
its only just begun now that classic has >5% hashing power it has veto power over segwit. obviously core (~95% hashing power) has veto power over 2MB with this veto power, a compromise is just around the corner. maybe we'll get 1.256MB now + Segwit later, who knows... if anything this thread is dead because classic isn't #R3KT |
|
|
|
Did this not answer your question? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14367997#msg14367997the witness data (signatures) portion of a transaction usually makes up around 75% of the total transaction data size ... so by moving it out the main block and into a separate 'witness block' of data makes available approx. that much space in the main block for other data.
Nope. Because despite the witness segregation in a separate block my full node will receive both txs base data and witness data to perform full validation. And because my node will have to relaying both base data and witness data to any other full node to let them perform full validation. So of the 3 main costs of operating a node RAM/CPU, bandwidth and storage the witness segregation will let me save in terms of storage and bandwidth only once I will decide to discard the witness part of a block, or "witness block" if you will. The 75% witness discount will allow for more transactions per block w/o requiring a hard fork. I don't think anyone is claiming that it will directly reduce resources required to run a full validating node. Give it up sickpig, we all understand what your saying, but like everyone keeps saying at the end of the day segwit will nearly double capacity. the 75% witness discount will make sure of that even if not all full-user-nodes dont upgraded. This has a disadvantage though, namely I could not fully participating to the p2p bitcoin network anymore because I can't provide blocks data to new nodes once I delete the witness part.
no. the blocks can be sent around without the individual sigs on each TX, and that block can still be validated without these sigs. |
|
|
|
i've ploted the blocklimit debate  my conclusion is we are close to forming consensus!! |
|
|
|
back in my day things look like this  now things look like this  Cant complain! |
|
|
|
what would you think if bitcoin stay at 400 range for- eva and other coin reach 200000 usd range instead  Maybe someone will create a breakthrough coin that is a game changer  |
|
|
|
i think bitcoin is much easier to understand then fiat
a toy for to help kids understand bitcoin would be a piggy bank with a bitcoin logo on it.
money in, money out
try explaining to a kid what happens when you deposit money in a bank....
bitcoin is probably closer to what people BELIEVE money is, then what fiat money actually is.
I always found there to be similarities. Explain what Fiat is to you in your own words perhaps? Fiat is money backed by debt, when you borrow money to buy a car or a house *POOF* that money is created out of nowhere, your promise to pay creates that money. Remember after 9/11 when the bankers came out and said " we found 4 billion dollar to fund the war on terror " what actually happened there is 4billion dollars was created out of nowhere. *POOF* when money is created and injected into the economy, the value of each dollar goes down, why do you think the price of food is always going up Up UP!!! the price of everything tends to go up yearly. its called inflation infact the banks target a 1-2% inflation rate what may look like a large sum of money today will not be a large sum of money tomorrow so poeple try to invest in assets or otherwise which causes speculative bubbles and distorts the markets remember the housing bubble? the economy is subject to boom and bust cycles. but the worst part, is that there's a limit on how much you can borrow, but there's no limit on how much the government can borrow. the government can choose to put itself in a HUGE amount of debt and fund whatever projects it feels like ( WAR! ) and we all pay for it with inflation. fiat is a system with arbitrary rules ( complex and numerous ) which favor the ruling class. |
|
|
|
|
I realize i am in the minority and my opinion is not appreciated, and will never be accepted by this crowd... i'm going to leave you guys to your own devices.
bitcoin IS what YOU want it to be. who am i to disagree?
truly sorry for the endless debating, i had to at least try.
its been fun, altho i disagree with your position I respect all of you, even the poeple that seemed like assholes at the time, i was attacking their belief system, their arger is to be expected...
goodbye.
|
|
|
|
you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field
decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!
Ah, the classic reduction to "omg socialism." Face it: bitcoin is centrally planned. Satoshi was the greatest of all central planners, for he established the money supply of 21 million coins, with controlled inflation. Can't separate engineering from planning. You can accept that decentralization is a goal to be achieved, or not. If the truth is that you don't care at all how centralized mining becomes (therefore how much control a single entity or cartel may have over all users, include the power to double spend)... then you should come out and say it. |
|
|
|
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big
The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks. if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster? if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks. you've unintentionally drove my point home? I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that. "A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners. You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules. a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate. better? That doesn't address the assertion that larger blocks contribute to miner centralization. Mining viability over time (due to subsidy halvings) depends on fees becoming a greater share of block rewards. You're then putting some miners between a rock and a hard place: 1) increase orphan rate or 2) decrease block reward. Either way, their viability is threatened, and this disproportionately affects smaller miners/pools, thus contributing to miner centralization. See the link I posted: The group of smaller miners loses a % of relative income. If they publish larger blocks, their loss percentage goes up slightly further. Perhaps more important: If a group of miners is willing to relay and build on a 1GB block, it doesn't follow that the rest of the network is willing to. Are we supposed to trust miners never to disagree? Sorry, but no thanks. I prefer that node software makes disagreement (hard forking) impossible. you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field. decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail! |
|
|
|
Of course upgrading to anything is easy, you just need to download the software and run it, just like you download any virus or trojan, a couple of mouse click then you are set, isn't that simple enough? That's exactly what blockstream devs are doing, since no one really understand how segwit works, they end up with propaganda and useless debate that does not make anyone more clever, finally: It is super simple, just download it and run it, everything will be fine... most website which handle bitcoins have custom wallets. they cannot simply install core. they will need to update their custom wallets with segwit code. some of the bigger ones ( poeple like bitfinex and MtGox ) have agreed to do these changes. they will use core code as a reference and copy, paste intergate. |
|
|
|
i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big
The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks. if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster? if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks. you've unintentionally drove my point home? I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that. "A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners. You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules. a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate. better? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
