...
tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD.
Chillax; sexy human females are waiting for you and your bitcoins @ Xotika.TV i can't i'm saving myself a big load to blow on my GF's face. |
|
|
|
note to Bruce Fenton: it might be worth when reading the posts to summerize the thoughts people have and then edit the OP to add brief summary of idea's that way people who jst skim read topics can see from the main post what suggestions have already been made EG How about a livestream and/or recording of the whole meeting? Bitcoin should not be about closed meetings.
ways to make Bitcoin more user friendly and accessible for the nontechnical average user before more VC money is lost backing overzealous inexperienced kids.
the 2mb code inplace in aprils release with a 70 day trigger (10,000 blocks instead of 1000) and a 6 month grace period.
giving atleast 8 months before active. rather then 16month core has proposed(july2016 code and atleast july 2017 active)
sidechains and liquids.. no premine. so the altcoins are created at the swap into.. and destroyed at the swap out
the only time they are not destroyed is in private trades between 2 people..
1) a detailed plan, make sure everyone agrees with the consensus reached, and talk about exactly how will it be rolled out.
2) incentives, can we somehow increase the incentives to run a full node?
3) Make peace, can Core and Classic not only coexist but work together?
not a bad start |
|
|
|
There is still a huge amount of upward momentum in this market, judging by the moving averages. The problem is, if we continue on this trajectory, blocks will fill first, then fees will double. Then fees will quadruple, octuple, etc. until even the mathematincally challenged pumpmonkeys start to extrapolate what this means. Even though fees are still cheap, they will be only so for a very short period of time.
we have the capacity for a half million active users at most. Even if we ALL go away and get replaced by high rollers doing drug deals or speculating on the halving or whatever, and even if SegWit almost doubles the capacity, then what? Things just stagnate until we go through another two year clusterfuck to kick the can again? Rinse and repeat?
and what if through some miracle we get through all of that with flying colors and market cap goes to 100 Billion. Do you think the PBoC and the Communist Party of China will be happy with that and just let it continue to grow?
I'm starting to think the best way for me to liquidate my stash is just to sell a coin a week for however many years it takes, regardless of whether the price goes up or down. The objective of traders is to make money, of course, but the purpose of traders is SUPPOSED to be to function as liquidity providers who reduce volatility.
The problem as I see it is that the traders who make the biggest profit in this market actually create volatility, withholding liquidity when it is needed and dumping when the market is already crashing. I may have made a fundamental miscalculation. This could just be growing pains or this could be something endemic to disinflationary currency.
What is SUPPOSED to happen according to economic theory is that as quantity of money creation decreases (halvings), velocity of money (transactions) is supposed to go up to compensate, maintaining the balance of MV=PQ. This clearly cannot happen if scaling is slower than halvings. Even if Core changes their own governance rules to ratify this roundtable agreement, scaling may be slower than halvings. Sidechains, lighting network, etc are no substitute because they effectively trade Bitcon IOUs and not actual bitcoin. You get the same problem that the fiat world has: a fractional reserve money multiplier than can either run positive or negative and screw up the balance. At some point, Bitcoin may hit stall speed and enter into an unrecoverable dive. What scares the shit out of me is this may have already happened. 27 months since the ATH, we're trading at <50%.
Somebody please tell me the error of my thinking, or a slow liquidation becomes a serious consideration.
+1 I agree, besides I see one last bubble coming, that will bring (due to its "success") the end of Bitcoin with it. Luckily a much more "decentralized" digital-currency ecosystem will follow. The fall will be hard for many early adopters. tl; dr; pure FUD every word is pure FUD. |
|
|
|
1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter of how Exactly it will be rolled out.
2) incentives, can we somehow increase the incentives to run a full node?
3) Make peace, it's obvious we need a competing impl. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.
the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.
bips should not be a core controlled thing.. for instance gavin recently made a bip that ANYONE core/xt/bu/bitcoinj could all implement .. by having individual bips for individual companies will just cause more debates and make bip 100001 something we would see soon.. bips should be something ANYONE can implement and not be branded/copywrited/limited to a company. bips should be in draftform and tweaked and improved on and then finalised.. rather then making 100000 different bips until one of them sticks fully agree, i'm just saying, there's alot of work to be done, split up the work, and review each other's work when done. maybe the work isn't related to a BIP, say we need to research how effective the gossip network is. one team can be looking at that area running test, coming up with good numbers, while the other team works on somthing else. both teams would agree to share all data they collect. |
|
|
|
|
1) a detailed plan, further talk on the details of how to proceed with the agreement reached at the other Roundtable, would be one thing, but i really hope poeple come into that talk with the idea that the pro/cons have been weighted and this IS the way forward, now its more a matter of how Exactly it will be rolled out.
2) incentives, can we somehow increase the incentives to run a full node?
3) Make peace, it's obvious we need a competing impl. , but how do we go about making sure Classic stays relevant? and howdo we get Core and Classic teams not only coexisting but also work together on some things. there will be many BIP most will be MUCH less controversial than BlockSize, these BIP need a lot of man hours put into them, why not have Core work on BIP123 while Classic works on BIP124, when they are done, both teams review each other's work, and at the end of the day BIP123 and BIP124 both get done, and we know they've been peer reviewed and securitized.
the overall goal should be to get everyone on the same page.
|
|
|
|
market price totally incorrect right now.
Actually, before the latest block size/Mike Hearn ragequit the price was fairly stable in the $430 range. The price dropped at that point. Now we're back to the safety of that $430 range. From here the price should slowly rise due to the normal factors. no way, a correction is currently underway, we'll be at 750 in no time. I think people will want to see work toward the agreed plan first. We are about 2 months away from the long climb up to the new high. But I would not put it past another FUD drop in price before then. And then straight shot to $32,000. Isn’t it Adam? no that happens in ~1.5 years starting from ~6000$  |
|
|
|
market price totally incorrect right now.
Actually, before the latest block size/Mike Hearn ragequit the price was fairly stable in the $430 range. The price dropped at that point. Now we're back to the safety of that $430 range. From here the price should slowly rise due to the normal factors. no way, a correction is currently underway, we'll be at 750 in no time. |
|
|
|
 We've been getting full blocks all day. Armstrong may be right that a HF in 2017 is too little too late. wheres brg444 when you need him full blocks != end of the world I agree, but it could = the end of this rally. Or every rally from here on out. so long as the full blocks are temporary so is this effect and speculation that it's only temporary should further reduce this effect. problem is we have been speculating about a fix for the last TEN MONTHS! i'd say we've been speculating about how a HF will result in 2 chains, or will never be fixed, consensus will never be reached, core dev's out to kill bitcoin, XT classic, everything expect a fix. So many times market has dropped hard on blocksizebitchfest related things. no one speculated they would come up with segwit. and when they did market wrongfully didn't react ( probably because people dont understand how gr8 segwit is) market price is totally incorrect right now. |
|
|
|
I think the bottom line is that there is no good reason not to immediately implement 2 MB blocks. A lot of people are already having much longer than normal transaction confirmation times, and it's going to get a lot worse as the transaction volume continues to grow.
It just makes no sense whatsoever not to implement a simple solution immediately.
So why the fuck are the blockstream devs so opposed to a blocksize increase? It just seems completely devoid of logic.
i guess, implementing 2MB first probably feels like admitting they were wrong. it feels like we just convinced a child to do eat his supper, let's not push it and make sure he eats the meat first. If you implement 2mb hardfork it will delay segwit significantly. segwth plus 2mb hardfork will give around 4mb blocks which will mean too high orphan rates for miners, and it would require devs to work on hardfork instead of segwit now. Segwit gives similar block increase to hard-fork can be rolled out immediately and has many important additional benefits. It also is the quickest way to increase block-size as devs rightly believe that a hard-fork needs long activation time. Also if fork is done later we can add some other improvements that also require hard-fork.AH HA! thank you its nice to understand their reasoning behind the decision. i would like to apologise for my ignorance, and most incorrect analogy. i am but a simple bitcoiner, shame on me for questioning the validity of the agreement. it sure FEELS like they are stalling and acting in their own self interest (blockstream), but that is only because I do not understand the details. |
|
|
|
I think the bottom line is that there is no good reason not to immediately implement 2 MB blocks. A lot of people are already having much longer than normal transaction confirmation times, and it's going to get a lot worse as the transaction volume continues to grow.
It just makes no sense whatsoever not to implement a simple solution immediately.
So why the fuck are the blockstream devs so opposed to a blocksize increase? It just seems completely devoid of logic.
i guess, implementing 2MB first probably feels like admitting they were wrong. it feels like we just convinced a child to do eat his supper, let's not push it and make sure he eats the meat first. |
|
|
|
ONE more time for good luck   |
|
|
|
it will take all the fees generated by low value TX on each block, away from miners and move them to LN CEO. 90% of fees generated on each block come from low value TX. some say its bitcoins killer app.  |
|
|
|
They paid 44 sats/byte. Better than most. Fees are paid on size, not value. The adoption that was supposed to be subsidized by the block reward is being squeezed to our competitors. You may be willing to bet the farm on (currently not here) second layer solutions fixing everything... I'm less confident about that. i believe the "spam" is just fine. @ 44 sats/byte feel free to spam me all day. i would not like to see these fees flow out of the miners hands just yet. i am very confident that second layer solutions will not be ready or necessary for at least a few years once 8MB blocks are completely full, then Maybe a second layer relieving some pressure will be preferable. for now the focus should be to grow the fee's each block contains in what ever way we can. trying to increase fees by making users pay more by limiting the number of TX / block is EXACTLY like trying to sell pizzas for 1000$ each by limiting the amount of pizzas you produce per day. |
|
|
|
...
its mostly "spam" aka poeple gambling on dice games and such.
Or tipping camwhores on exotika.tv that sounds exciting i should try that. |
|
|
|
We've been getting full blocks all day. Armstrong may be right that a HF in 2017 is too little too late. wheres brg444 when you need him full blocks != end of the world I agree, but it could = the end of this rally. Or every rally from here on out. so long as the full blocks are temporary so is this effect and speculation that it's only temporary should further reduce this effect. the blocks are full, full of crap ... or else fees would be rising, crap doesn't crap for fees. blocksize will go up when the technology allows for it. Reader, open this site: https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/Watch the Latest Transactions for while...: Come back and tell me those are crap. Also, tell me we have no competition in this arena. The technology allows for it today. (If you're me: Gently weep at the difference in post quality from the Marcus of yesteryear.) look here https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/tx/1955f713c09279da01e71c169d9888d8d03aaf4814a4324acbb515b5e8a33f0cthis one like most, has 2 outputs when you send 0.1BTC from a 10BTC address, the 1 TX generally goes like: send 0.1BTC out, and 9.9BTC back to an address i own, and that shows up as a TX totaling 10BTC. its mostly "spam" aka poeple gambling on dice games and such. @marcus_of_augustus, saying that these TX do "crap" for fees doesn't sound right seeing how they account for ~90% of the total fees miners collect on each block. |
|
|
|
Blockstream is never to be underestimated. They literally didn't move an inch and everyone is circle jerking "the great compromise"... incredible. This is the company that tried to patent Hot Wallet for heaven's sake! No, wait. Wrong company. My mistake.  he's been interviewed this guy... he said that he doesn't necessarily "believe in bitcoin", he just saw poeple making shit tons of money and wanted a part of it. All men are equal down at the Cross.  expect our lord and saviour jesus christ |
|
|
|
Blockstream is never to be underestimated. They literally didn't move an inch and everyone is circle jerking "the great compromise"... incredible. This is the company that tried to patent Hot Wallet for heaven's sake! No, wait. Wrong company. My mistake. Oh the Coinbase guy, he's been interviewed this guy... he said that he doesn't necessarily "believe in bitcoin", he just saw poeple making shit tons of money and wanted a part of it. |
|
|
|
|
this thing is really gonna fly.
this is gentlemen!
|
|
|
|
We've been getting full blocks all day. Armstrong may be right that a HF in 2017 is too little too late. wheres brg444 when you need him full blocks != end of the world I agree, but it could = the end of this rally. Or every rally from here on out. so long as the full blocks are temporary so is this effect and speculation that it's only temporary should further reduce this effect. |
|
|
|
We've been getting full blocks all day. Armstrong may be right that a HF in 2017 is too little too late. wheres brg444 when you need him full blocks != end of the world if we actually start filling 4MB blocks completely full by 2017 how high is price going to be? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
