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. |
|
|
|
|
lets try to get back on track here.
Questions...
Does Core intend to go ahead with the proposal reached at the roundtable consensus? (segwit ASAP + 2MB HF a year later)
or maybe a better question, did the roundtable have any effect on anything or anyone? has anything changed due to the roundtable?
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
It's about time to end this close-door roundtable consensus process.
Complete goes against Satoshi's consensus-forming process.
wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect. Miners have little to no power in Bitcoin. If you insist on hanging around and opining, you really should lean how all this stuff works. Here's a good place to start: http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where he thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves. If the majority of hashpower agreed to do that via a hard fork protocol change then it would happen. The thing is the miners have invested a lot in bitcoin, and by changing the coin distribution they would destroy bitcoins value, soooo, not gonna happen. Changing the block max size on the other hand, would have no such effect. right. it's a bit of catch 22 miners want to mine coins that everyone wants, everyone wants coins that the most miners are producing, because users want coins with the most secure blockchain. who ultimately has the power is unclear to say the least.... 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... |
|
|
|
Bullish!* *(Don't hurt me, Fatman) i guess this is what the bump is about nice 10$ sipke. |
|
|
|
i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....
It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs. how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core.
[1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).  |
|
|
|
i should rename the thread to Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus? Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french. while i would prefer an unlimited block limit and let miners risk getting orphaned if they broadcast a block that is too big ... i'm not on any side in particular, i will go along with any "consensus" that looks to increase effective block size ASAP short of "consensus" and off to "war" we go, my support falls with gavin... |
|
|
|
|
how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
|
|
|
|
i should rename the thread to Did Blockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus? |
|
|
|
sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.
Okay, I don't think you realize the meaning of the words "right now". You can have both in 2017 for sure, but not within the next 6 months. Either we implement Segwit first, or we implement 2 MB block size limit (with the sigops workaround). you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?
i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...
There are a lot of people (or shills) for which anything from Core isn't acceptable because it is Core. These people should be ignored at all cost (including people for which anything from the other side isn't acceptable for the same reason). i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream. lets not count the shills.... |
|
|
|
i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus?
You're asking me something like: Why do some people do bad things? Why doesn't everyone want world piece?. These are questions that nobody can answer for everyone. People have different views about scaling Bitcoin in addition to there being sadists and possibly a paid campaign. There are a lot of sides, views, different personalities. who is not loving it?
Pretty much every Classic supporter. sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise "segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year" felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together. you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides? i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream |
|
|
|
O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!
i'm done with you
You apparently have some comprehension deficits. Either get educated or go away with your random nonsense. It is Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. You can't have both right now, and that is causing this issue. why are you saying this i never said anything about getting Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus? who is not loving it? |
|
|
|
|
list of names - who they are, would be nice.
|
|
|
|
what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )
Nonsense. Show me the list of developers that support 2 MB blocks, then show me the list of developers that support Segwit. You will see a huge difference in numbers there. It is either one or the other, you can't have both right now. O_O? Classic wants segwit! CLASSIC! i'm done with you |
|
|
|
well they need to.
they can all talk to each other and decide to agree.
OR the Fing president can call the shots???
another question is does it matter if blockstream is not onboard?
i do realize that most of blockstream devs are also core devs, but there seemed to be alot of sigs on the roundtable consensus labeled core dev.
They don't need to talk to Blockstream. Blockstream does not have control over the development. the persistent and one of the devs ( MattTheBlue? ) from blockstream is onboard, but a few others from blockstream are not.
why not? this is a pretty fucking easy doc to agree to...
and should we care what they think? after all core and everyone else is onboard.
Because when you are part of Blockstream you are free to express your own views, which is exactly what some did (e.g. maaku). The question is rather: who did the miners think they met?
Miners believed they represents Bitcoin Core, otherwise it wouldnt make any sence. But unfortunatelly miners got tricked. Nope. Anyone who thought that a few Core developers could represent a whole decentralized (voluntary) group at the meeting was acting foolish at best. Nobody was tricked. There was zero guarantee that the HF proposal is going to be implemented. The statement says that a proposal has to be presented along with code before July. Patience people.
thats why they removed "president of blockstream" and replaced it to "individual"
so why did they change it back?
I've posted an explanation from Peter on the first page. Have you even read anything that was posted? what is with these BS technicalities!? AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- ) |
|
|
|
|
i sold a bunch, as a hedge against blockstearms rock hard heads.
if these guys continue to have influence over bitcoin, i foresee myself rage quitting at one point .
they are bound to keep pissing me off...
|
|
|
|
No wonder these miners are acting so crazy.
They've actually been doing pretty ok given the shitstorm, FUD, dev wars, etc. +1 its pretty clear who is acting crazy.... |
|
|
|
is it official blockstream is not supporting roundtable?
its my understanding that f2pool will support the roundtable, if blockstream does to.
can mods rename the thread to reflect this reality?  |
|
|
|
I had chosen Core. Now most here had suggested Core. I dont know much about Classic. I thot Core would be OK so far.
run classic to show your willingness to have 2MB blocks. in the end it won't matter it's not like your coins are in danger whichever version you choose to run. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
