|
how has this news not blown up already
isnt the meeting over?
|
|
|
|
|
china is leading, now at ~440.56$
|
|
|
|
Core prevails. Classic coin #rekt. Ya'll #rekt.
GG
congratulations sir  congratulations all |
|
|
|
can anyone explain me what did they decide to do to increase the block size or not? i dont understand too much about that nothing is offical but is seems to have played out like we were hoping we'll get segwit and 2MB later, they should be setting a date for HF as we speak! so increasing the block limit with a hard fork is actually good? wont it have negative effect on price because of the 2 chains that will be created? poeple are clueless fuck'm, shove'm out of the way! Buy BUY BUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  |
|
|
|
can anyone explain me what did they decide to do to increase the block size or not? i dont understand too much about that nothing is offical but is seems to have played out like we were hoping we'll get segwit and 2MB later, they should be setting a date for HF as we speak! |
|
|
|
IT'S OVER WE HAVE REACHED CONSENSUS !!!!!!!!!!! https://twitter.com/cnLedgerthis is coming from some meeting in China regarding trying to reach consensus. |
|
|
|
But then, they somehow also have to deal with the fact that in the white paper, Moses Satoshi mentions the terms "Electronic Cash" twice, "payment" (in a non-technical sense) 6 times, but the term "artificial scarcity driven clearance network" exactly zero times.
The title - "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". What Satoshi proposed is a monetary system, not a payment system. The monetary form is electronic cash under the name of Bitcoin. The blockchain is the system that ensures the very existence of the monetary form. You can have many different payment systems based on Bitcoin. It is all straight forward. What don't you understand? The logical fallacy of big blocktards is that they try to compete with fiat payment systems using bitcoin monetary system. It is a lost battle, dear big blocktards! To compete with Visa or PP you have to create payment systems BASED on the bitcoin blockchain, not use the blockchain itself! This is what LN and side chains are all about! there will either be a huge amounts of volume on the blockchain or not at all. take your pick i'm not going to bother explaining why you don't listen. make a choice. |
|
|
|
If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.
why not? Well I guess you could start a dating service, and encourage people to share the double pizza.  omfg that sounds like LN  why not cap the number of pizza you produce so you can really jack up the price! $_$ |
|
|
|
If you produce 500 pizzas per day, and 1,000 people want pizzas. You don't get rid of the backlog by doubling the size of the pizza. Either you produce 1,000 pizzas per day, or you increase the price so that 500 people buy something else.
why not? |
|
|
|
... in the meantime, if anyone was interested bitcoin is embarking on major bull run, 428 broken, 456 is next stop, 480 pause, 500 should fall easily then taking aim for 600-650 region.
Do we care that the price hit $430?
not 1 shit was given this is the most bullish thing i have ever seen. seriously, we're going to 750 FOR SURE |
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanations. I was thinking that if the block creation time was reduced to 5 minutes at the same time as rewards were halved, then the new coin creation rate would still be roughly the same. Obviously this would allow for the processing of more transactions per minute, and I thought it might allow for a reduction in the size of the UTXO pool. I didn't appreciate the orphan creation problem though. Also, I wasn't aware of the need to change the difficulty in finding hash targets. I assumed that hardware improvements had made target discovery much faster, and the 10 minute limit was a policy restriction. I guess I need to read up on the hashing logic.
If you are properly set up, most transactions can be accepted with 0 confirmations. Just make sure your client uses several well connected nodes for where it gets its transactions from, and do not accept incoming connections. That makes the race attack very difficult because the transaction you see for a given input then likely becomes the same transaction the miners see and any double spend attempt will be rejected. Most of the other double spend attacks require that the attacker be someone who has the hash rate to create blocks, and are very very hard to pull off - as in not worth trying for relatively small amounts of money. The transaction confirmation problem really isn't one. Sure it may take hours sometimes for a given TX with a low fee to make it into the blockchain, but double spending on that TX is really hard unless you are a miner yourself. Even then it is hard. you can send your TX with a fee so small it won't get included in a block you'll see it come up as a 0 conf. and never get confirmed. then you resend the same bitcoin 12 days later with a fee that will get accepted. conclusion, you'll also need to make sure you check the fee is appropriate if your going to accept 0 conf. But if you send it with a fee that small it will likely never get relayed to the vendor. That's why as a vendor, your client should never accept direct connections - so that the double spender can't connect directly to your node to deliver the TX but instead has to get a TX that will get to the vendor by being relayed. thanks for this clarification now which nodes are trustworthy? |
|
|
|
already customers are discovering they like hamburgers as well ( ETH )
You mean the pump and dump scheme? The "Bitcoin 2.0 marketing fraud"? Anyone reasonable would stay away from such (aside from profiting to get more Bitcoins of course). most promising alt of all time Bitcoin 2.0 marketing fraud if i only produce 1 pizza a day i can sell it for 10,000$ because 1000 poeple want 1 pizza / day if i only produce 1 MB of block space every 10 mins fees will rise, and the backlog will go away. what's the dif? |
|
|
|
Shit i have to pay 1000 satoshi more for my transactions.
Where will i get hold of this huge amount of money? Better raise that blocksize to 1 GB fast.
fees will not rise substantially, thats not the issue, the issue is the line up will grow substantially . believing fees will rise is like saying if i only produce 1 pizza a day i can sell it for 10,000$ because 1000 poeple want 1 pizza / day believe or not your not the only pizzeria in town. already customers are discovering they like hamburgers as well ( ETH ) |
|
|
|
It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count? if poeple believe node count is dangerously low, they will sign up to a free AWS account and fire up a node. so, node count is and always be at least as high as what poeple think is acceptable. |
|
|
|
You know how the big-block arguments are basically bogus? ... in the end they are appealing to cult of personality (Saint Gavin will save them), because their reasoning and logic is ultimately devoid of adequate substance to base technical decisions upon.
a man is sitting on his roof top because the whole neighborhood is flooded a boat comes the man says no thanks god will save me a another boat comes the man says no thanks god will save me a helicopter comes the man says no thanks god will save me the man drowns, and later asks god why he didnt save him god says, I sent you 2 boats and chopper you retard! |
|
|
|
Hey Core!  lol good night bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
