When you really sit down and work through possible options with businesses, as I have done, they typically don't want on-chain scaling.
Think about it: if you are a business, why would you want a solution that involves your competitors being able to figure out how much you are paying your suppliers, or how much your customers are spending on your product? On-chain bitcoin transactions, even when used well, do a piss-poor job of hiding this information. I know it may run counter to the mob wisdom of this subreddit, but this is actually preventing a number of industries from adopting bitcoin.
Business types.  https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47kme0/bitcoin_classic_2016_roadmap_announcement/d0ewnqb maaku7 is confusing the issue... and i guess he hasn't heard about confidential TX now made possible using bitcoin. besides no one is stoping him for dev.ing the LN so that these businesses who dont want to TX on the main chain can use LN... dumbass, what a dumbass. |
|
|
|
Satoshi understood the implications he didnt pass them off as disastrous, but rather natural evolution
All I see here is an appeal to authority. He's Satoshi, he invented Bitcoin, ergo he is right. This is not really the right way of doing things. feel free to replace 'Satoshi' with another respectable and active "bigblocker" we know today. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Man. You don't git?
Not really in this case. I've never opened the BU Github page and didn't have a reason to do so. Classic did change the name in a few places (for now). However, it is good to see that they've left it intact. Satoshi said it himself he would have the limit bumped when needed, it was a non-issue for him.
So we're throwing away 5 years worth of data because he is Satoshi therefore he must be right? Satoshi understood the implications he didnt pass them off as disastrous, but rather natural evolution |
|
|
|
A bunch of shills on reddit and we're getting endless heated discussions, while Bitcoin operates correctly.
Everyone knew the rules for how long? 5 years? Everyone is aware of the perpetual "stress test" causing the blocks appear full.
Absolutely everyone knows about the Satoshi's 1MB rule, nobody even dared to complain when it was introduced during the initial spam tests.
Now people come here crying about 4 cent fees. Keep settling your pocket changes on exchanges or in Doge, crybabies.
Satoshi said it himself he would have the limit bumped when needed, it was a non-issue for him. Satoshi's vision is similar to Gavin's ( thats where Gavin got it i guess ) bitcoin mining will become more specialized, and thats fine, SPV client etc.... I'm crying because bitcoin lost 6% market share in 2 months because of all this indecision |
|
|
|
I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.
Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added. In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.I hope this actually reflects the reality, one day. I believe it's half true today, today miners only seem to be able to say what won't get added, they can't pull in features they would like to see ( ex 2MB blocks ) I think Bitcoin depends on this presumption. The miners absolutely could pull in features like two megabytes blocks, I think they are choosing not to just to be more diplomatic for now, which is not unwise. I think we will see two megabyte blocks, it is just a matter of time. it's interesting to see these concepts play out in reality, thats for sure! |
|
|
|
I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.
Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added. In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.i hope this actually reflects the reality, one day. I believe it's half true today, today miners only seem to be able to say what won't get added, they can't pull in features they would like to see ( ex 2MB blocks ) any new feather seem to have been exclusively made by Core in order for it to be considered. |
|
|
|
This classic rebellion is completely pointless. The core team haven't failed at all. They are delivering and will deliver.
It's time to engineer and deploy SegWit. I'm confident it can be developed and deployed correctly. If that fails, and developers mismanage this, then it's turn for the haters to express their concerns and assemble their own team.
if we could get 3 highly qualified teams all competing to get there new features pulled into "Bitcoin" without anyone of them having the power to actually pull in the new features themselves, that would be ideal. I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.it was necessary at the beginning ( there was only one team ) but if we can break away from that, that would be great. wasn't there a BIP made to allow this kind of thing to happen? miners would be allowed to express their willingness to accept whatever new features are on the table? once >90% of minners had flaged a feature as acceptable it would get activated. |
|
|
|
This classic rebellion is completely pointless. The core team haven't failed at all. They are delivering and will deliver.
It's time to engineer and deploy SegWit. I'm confident it can be developed and deployed correctly. If that fails, and developers mismanage this, then it's turn for the haters to express their concerns and assemble their own team.
if we could get 3 highly qualified teams all competing to get there new features pulled into "Bitcoin" without anyone of them having the power to actually pull in the new features themselves, that would be ideal. I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.it was necessary at the beginning ( there was only one team ) but if we can break away from that, that would be great. |
|
|
|
Welcome to open source software dev. no it's not a joke.
They can withhold merging their features. They could wait for Core to release an upgrade each time and then merge those changes in addition to their features. Technically they could claim that their implementation is better each time because of their features (which they think are useful). core can do the same. If these features really are pointless and not noteworthy then just ignore it Its feels like an awful waste to dismiss all code from anyone else simply because they're not your friend. IDK, but i get the feeling Core is very... how do i put it... Hostile? Close minded? fuck idk , this is just the feeling i get when i read these comments from the Core supports... i see gavin going around helping all, and core hoarding code and pointing fingers at everyone.. |
|
|
|
Traffic shaping was first implemented by XT not Core. Furthermore the traffic shaping feature in Core just cuts off upload at N bytes for those who have metered plans. This is no where near as useful as proper throttling controls which Bitcoin Unlimited has even implemented within a new GUI.
Not really, no. Bitcoin Unlimited now has more beneficial features compared to Core.
First you proceed to copy paste everything from Core, then you apply a few features of your own and call your implementation 'more beneficial'?  What a joke. Welcome to open source software dev. no it's not a joke. |
|
|
|
Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)
From the consensus letter The Bitcoin Core contributors present at the Bitcoin Roundtable will have an implementation of such a hard-fork available as a recommendation to Bitcoin Core within three months after the release of SegWit It is possible for Bitcoin Core to reject the HF recommendation. This hard-fork is ... will only be adopted with broad support across the entire Bitcoin community So, I read this as saying that nothing is set in stone yet, i.e. a HF is not guaranteed to happen. i understand it's not guaranteed, i would however like some kind of statement that Core devs at least wants to go ahead with 2MB limit. if i go by what i'm hearing its almost guaranteed that they will simply say "decentralization", "dangerous HF" and then call it off THEMSELVES. are they genuinely backing the 2MB proposal? or did they simply agree to shoot it down again next year? this is more of a rant than anything else... not worth responding to:
Vladimir said "I'm all for it" thats a start, but Vladimir is another one of these leaders with no balls like Adam of blockstream, at least that what it SEEMS like. If you can't speak on behalf of your team and or make the tough calls when your team members can't agree your not a leader. |
|
|
|
but devs have no power at all, if a group of devs don't produce the software that users and miners want to use, some other group of devs will...
This is a fantasy, unsupported by six years of history. History gives us btcd, well developed, but completely ignored and irrelevant. History gives us Mike Hearn, who is damaged, alone, and bitter. History gives us Gavin Andreson, unsure of his own identity, not committed to Bitcoin, comfortable in his sofa of virtual coin. History gives us XT, Classic, and Unlimited, "let's put on a show" high school science fair projects put together by Cypherdoc, Peter R, the Toomim brothers, and other pretenders/scammers. That leaves the Core devs. Cryptographers, C++ experience, professionals. Not perfect, but responsible for everything that BTC lovers hold dear. The idea that you can stop a car on the street and turn the occupants into developers of the next great cryptocurrency is an exercise in denial delusion wishful thinking fantasy If you want a coin developed by a random group of computer hobbyists, choose among the 1000 alt coins. If you want a virtual currency with an established network and infrastructure, choose bitcoin and the people who brought it to 1200, 420, and 6 billion dollars. that happened under Gavin's leadership... ( and he's helping classic and unlimited now...) yes this is the thing about my wild notion that devs have no power, its only true if there's enough of them. aslo the users need to understand this idea and not take anything any one group of dev's say as gospel. |
|
|
|
but devs have no power at all, if a group of devs don't produce the software that users and miners want to use, some other group of devs will...
That's only true if you have lots of alternative implementations, and when there are lots of alternative implementations, a fork will happen sooner or later when two different implementations differ too much in design philosophy. But they can't fork since that will destroy the promise of limited coin supply, so eventually they have to come to agreement or make compromise, otherwise it will be deadlock or hash war ... war never changes There needs to be some minimal amount of devs willing to dev different versions of bitcoin that poeple want to see. but i'm thinking we are starting to push past this point. today, if there is enough demand for an alternative client then there will BE an alternative. There was some demand for bigger blocks BOOM XT was born. There was some demand for 2MB blocks BOOM Classic was born There was some demand for "unlimited block space" BOOM Bitcoin Unlimited was born. The power / willingness to change bitcoins rules goes from the bottom up; devs at the top, miners in the middle, and users at the bottom. it's a comforting notion. |
|
|
|
it would be interesting if someone could do some maths to see about how much money it would take to pump bitcoin to 32,000$
32,000$ implies a market cap of ~488,160,000,000$
but obviously it wouldn't require 400Billion to pump it that high.
no way to know what kind of bid walls would go up along the way, seems impossible to predict as a result. would be one hell of a show, though. for fun. assuming about 1/2 of ALL the coins would be sold to the pumper along the way. assuming these coins would be sold at an avg price of 10,000$ we need to see 76,275,000,000$ flow into the market in order to hit a high of 32,000$ 76Billion dollarsThe only way bitcoin will ever come close to 32k is through honest to goodness mainsteam adoption - no pumper or pump group could ever come close. The pumpers would long since been bought the fuck out. i think your right, 2 million bitcoiners all hit market buy with 38,000$ each and we'll make it that no good i don't like that. but is 76Billion really what will be required?? hmmm it seems to me if i start throwing all kinds of assumptions around i can probably get the number down to 30Billion required to pump bitcoin to 32,000$ ok so if 2million bitcoin hit market buy with ~15,000$ each we'll make it to 32K still to much 20million bitcoiners hit market buy with 1,500$ each and we'll make it to 32K its official we need about 10X more bitcoiners.  i'm going to pull a few more magic numbers out of my ass how many dollars per bitcoiner can we expect?? assuming there are 2million of us globally right now and with a market cap of ~5billion right now each bitcoiner contributed an avg of 2500$ each to the pump bitcoin this far so with 20million bitcoiners we could see a pump to 32,000$ EASILY now let's look at when we can expect to have 20million bitcoiners , bitcoin-ing lets see how long it took facebook to get 20million users  no time. |
|
|
|
it would be interesting if someone could do some maths to see about how much money it would take to pump bitcoin to 32,000$
32,000$ implies a market cap of ~488,160,000,000$
but obviously it wouldn't require 400Billion to pump it that high.
no way to know what kind of bid walls would go up along the way, seems impossible to predict as a result. would be one hell of a show, though. for fun. assuming about 1/2 of ALL the coins would be sold to the pumper along the way. assuming these coins would be sold at an avg price of 10,000$ we need to see 76,275,000,000$ flow into the market in order to hit a high of 32,000$ 76Billion dollarsThe only way bitcoin will ever come close to 32k is through honest to goodness mainsteam adoption - no pumper or pump group could ever come close. The pumpers would long since been bought the fuck out. i think your right, 2 million bitcoiners all hit market buy with 38,000$ each and we'll make it that no good i don't like that. but is 76Billion really what will be required?? hmmm it seems to me if i start throwing all kinds of assumptions around i can probably get the number down to 30Billion required to pump bitcoin to 32,000$ ok so if 2million bitcoin hit market buy with ~15,000$ each we'll make it to 32K still to much 20million bitcoiners hit market buy with 1,500$ each and we'll make it to 32K its official we need about 10X more bitcoiners. |
|
|
|
it would be interesting if someone could do some maths to see about how much money it would take to pump bitcoin to 32,000$
32,000$ implies a market cap of ~488,160,000,000$
but obviously it wouldn't require 400Billion to pump it that high.
no way to know what kind of bid walls would go up along the way, seems impossible to predict as a result. would be one hell of a show, though. for fun. assuming about 1/2 of ALL the coins would be sold to the pumper along the way. assuming these coins would be sold at an avg price of 10,000$ we need to see 76,275,000,000$ flow into the market in order to hit a high of 32,000$ 76Billion dollars |
|
|
|
|
it would be interesting if someone could do some maths to see about how much money it would take to pump bitcoin to 32,000$
32,000$ implies a market cap of ~488,160,000,000$
but obviously it wouldn't require 400Billion to pump it that high.
|
|
|
|
P> Announcing BitcoinUnlimited v0.12.0
Xtreme Thinblocks
BUIP010 Reduces real-time block propagation sizes by an average of 15x (i.e. 1MB down to 70KB) returning the network overhead for newly mined blocks to the state it was in June 2012
Xpress Validation
BUIP010 Superfast block validation leverages the earlier validation of transactions which are in the mempool so that only previously unseen transactions in a block need full validation.
Traffic-shaping
BUIP001 Users can easily configure how much bandwidth should be used for Bitcoin, allowing the BU client to run unobtrusively in a home network. this seems like good stuff, what's your take on it iCEBREAKER? does Core have or plan to have this? |
|
|
|
i'd disagree
short of a full on war breaking out ( >51% >33% hashing power switching to classic = full on war going on )
i don't see wtf is going to kill price, so much FUD the past few days and price was flat. what's it going to take to kill price??? WAR, thats what.
make no mistake, i have no logical reason to think it'll drop. just seems so stuck here, ya know? don't trust your feelings, >32,000 <2years! is still possible all we need is 1 miracle or 400billion dollars |
|
|
|
nice little launch this evening.
think it'll hold past monday?
i'll bet my entire btc supply that it won't!
(that's 5,242 WHOLE satoshi's!)
wtf you have no more coins? O_o? why why why would you have no more coins? sold most around $100 due to unemployment. since 2008, i've only had a job last more then 6 months twice. last gig was going well, but got laid off dec. 9, day after my birthday... it's been a rough patch. got married in sept 2015 though, which is nice. oh i c. well congratulations, hope you get back to work soon, best wishes. as for your "this price increase won't stick" comment i'd disagree short of a full on war breaking out ( >51% >33% hashing power switching to classic = full on war going on ) i don't see wtf is going to kill price, so much FUD the past few days and price was flat. what's it going to take to kill price??? WAR, thats what. lol wtf is this? i don't even... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
