 Deal with it |
|
|
|
If everyone had an IT degree I'll be out of work.
You shouldn't and you can't expect everyone to spend hours learning how some particular system works, if it was like that Linux would be a fraction as big as it is and bitcoin would be restricted to a small highly skilled community.
So you're telling me that one needs an IT degree to be able to include the proper fee?  I never talked about understanding the system in detail which the majority does not need to know (and they don't). If you want it really simple, use Bitcoin Core and push the fee slider to the right and keep it there. It is as simple as that. The last time that I've used this setting for a transaction the fee was about ~10 cents. there you go problem solved. right!? |
|
|
|
blockstreams lame rebuttles not to do 2mb
1. 2mb is too much data
debunk: segwits real world data can be 1.5mb-4mb
2. the processing time of handling more transactions is too much for average computers
debunk: 1mb works on a raspberry Pi, so 2mb can work even on a 2005 basic laptop as that is twice the capacity in every way imaginable.. further more we are not in 2005 we are in 2016 so average technology is even better than that
3. segwit offers a better scaling solution
debunk: for about a couple of months until other roadmap feature re-bloat up the data of transactions that segwit first saved.
4. if we implement 2mb the malleability issues will cause further problems.
debunk: if you include the 2mb buffer in the April release (when malleability is supposedly fixed) there wont be an issue
5. but blocks will be 2mb full constantly
debunk: no, miners wont risk losing reward by pushing twice the data out straight away, they will dip their toe in the water in small increments. just like 2013 when there was a 1mb buffer but miners were only making 0.5mb blocks. slowly incrementing as they found a comfortable pace to add more transactions, over years, not days.
6. but there is just no need for scaling.
debunk. well average blocks can only hold 2500tx.. and there is a mempool of over 7,000 growing, just sitting there as they are not getting added to blocks. so there is a backlog that needs to be sorted. its not like the 1mb buffer is sufficient because there are only 0.5mb sat in the mempool. theres many blocks at 0.99mb(at top capacity) and a mempool of 10mb backlog. the only reason blocks are made below capacity is not due to lack of transactions to process. but greed of some miners making empty blocks
7. but if there is no backlog, then people dont need to pay fee's as there is room for everyone
debunk: the block reward is sufficient payment for miners for a couple decades because of the deflationary fiat valuation of bitcoins keeps the valuation high enough.. so fees should have no part of the coding /logistics debate for a long time.
8. gavinsta, toomin, hearne, R3, blah blah blah.
debunk: the 2mb buffer can be incorporated into any client.. yep that includes Core, and the other dozen, so dont twist it into politics. as the code can be used by anyone. if your against the idea just because of who owns a particular client. then put the code into another client not owned by them
All of those "debunks" have been already debunked, but I would like gmaxwell to post and address each of them, I can't be bothered with this shit anymore personally, I will just wait and see it become irrelevant like XT and the rest of hard fork attempts with coders that never did anything relevant for Bitcoin. it's too bad, i would like to see how you reason your way out of #2 or #6. |
|
|
|
With a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed?
I have no idea why you would complain about a backlog of 4000 transactions. We've seen much bigger backlogs in the past and everything was fine? However this is interesting: Total Fees 64.31924776 BTC
just wait till the backlog is much bigger imagine all the fees we will squeeze out of all the suckers sending bitcoins to stamps/bittrex ASAP |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin fees climb high enough then other altcoins with lower fees will begin to see adoption.
its ok, in 2020 when lighting network is ready, everyone will come right back. |
|
|
|
Well I'm a Bitcoin newbie, but I'm getting pissed off by the stroppy 2Mb people who are trying to force an apparently simplistic solution that isn't needed yet. I have yet to see a compelling argument that provides a justification for an immediate blocksize increase.
That's because you don't use bitcoin. Here's your argument: https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactionshttps://chain.btc.com/en/blockWith a backlog like that, shouldn't every block be full all the time until the backlog is processed? it should be, but for some reasons some blocks come out empty in anycase, everyblock could be full forever and the backlog won't get cleared Core wants this backlog to go up an order of magnitude so they can test their high fees is good for bitcoin theory |
|
|
|
I don't imagine we can or need to do anything more than what we're doing. I'm honestly just trying to understand the pushes and pulls involved in the possibility of a protocol change.
Me too. Let's try 1.1MB for a little while to see. Depending on what we learn then we can fallback to 1MB or try the next increment of like 1.2MB or something. Why do we feel compelled to jump to 2MB all at once? Because changing the blocksize requires a hard fork, the common wisdom being that hard forks are traumatic events, sort of like [invasive] surgery. If you already opened the patient, might as well do everything that needs to be done, instead of removing just a wee bit of the tumor & having to do the whole thing over again in a month. If you give a 6 months notice, I will most of the users and miners will change their software in time. This happened before. it took 4 hours to sync all miners on earth last time we had a HF, and no one had any notice. |
|
|
|
Epic copy-pasta! A Call for Consensus
Over the past few months there has been significant attention within the bitcoin ecosystem and beyond on what is commonly referred to as the “block size issue” — the size and scale of bitcoin blocks. There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together to chart an effective path to resolve this challenge and agreed on five positions we hope will guide the larger community as we move forward together.
The following are five key points that we have all agreed on.
1.We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
2.We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
3.In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
4.We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
5.We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.
Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoin is strong and transformational. By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.
Together, we are:
Phil Potter
Chief Strategy Officer
Bitfinex
Valery Vavilov
CEO
BitFury
Alex Petrov
CIO
BitFury
James Hilliard
Pool/Farm Admin
BitmainWarranty
Yoshi Goto
CEO
BitmainWarranty
Alex Shultz
CEO
BIT-X Exchange
Bobby Lee
CEO
BTCC
Samson Mow
COO
BTCC
Robin Yao
CTO
BTCT & BW
Ronny Boesing
CEO
CCEDK ApS
Obi Nwosu
Managing Director
Coinfloor
Mark Lamb
Founder
Coinfloor
Wang Chun
Admin
F2Pool
Marco Streng
CEO
Genesis Mining
Marco Krohn
CFO
Genesis Mining
Oleksandr Lutskevych
CEO
GHash.IO & CEX.IO
Lawrence Nahum
CEO
GreenAddress
Eric Larchevêque
CEO
Ledger
Jack Liao
CEO
LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange
Charlie Lee
Creator
Litecoin
Guy Corem
CEO
Spondoolies-Tech
Davide Barbieri
CTO
TheRockTrading
Michael Cao
CEO
Zoomhash
如果你想要读中文版，请点击这里。
This is basically the same letter the miners sent, with the same deadline! They are implying that they want Core to pick a time frame on a hard fork within three weeks or they will support Classic. So basically it's the whole world against Core at this point. 1MB4EVA is doomed, But we still have no idea how long it will take to die. It's hard to imagine Core won't take this deal. Bigblockers have caved on everything but 2MB some time in the next say 18 months. Core's best option will be something like SegWit this year, and if everything goes well, 2MB next year with a doubling every other year after that. They will try to figure out what the slowest scaling schedule can possibly be that the majority will accept. If they guess right, off to the races. If they guess wrong, look out below. I've become a pessimist because I have been following this controversy longer than most. I think there is a slight probability that they will guess wrong and Classic will become Bitcoin, but that is by no means certain. Core/Blockstream has demonstrated some really stunning ineptitude with their tin ears, and weak PR. The voices against them cry louder and louder and have become a chorus, but the most powerful voice, the Market, is perhaps unclear. There is a reason why we are still trading at ~40% of the ATH 27 months later. I believe Core's obstinacy on the blocksize issue is that reason. The five year logarithmic uptrend is broken. It's Core's fault. There is no getting rid of Core hegemony without a crash. Either a crash will get rid of them or getting rid of them will cause a crash. The only way Core can maintain Hegemony is by committing to a HF and moving from their entrenched position. Time to make popcorn. holy fuck that would be the single biggest buy opt since SR crash. |
|
|
|
unyielding 1MB position? ... Where are you getting that from...? Last time I checked they suggest many possible solutions for these problems. I think their roadmap is clear enough and would scale block size as needed and when it is needed. The debate is healthy for this experiment and forced scalability and scare tactics should be left to the reserve banks and politicians.  ... No need to get mad! you've been lied to  |
|
|
|
great it's confirmed - lock the thread and call it a day.
quickly! poeple might realize there's somthing wrong. |
|
|
|
And the moral of the story is?
We should develop advanced AI and put it in charge of bitcoin development? Because we as Humans could never achieve total bias less judgement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ozaFbqg00 |
|
|
|
Deal with it |
|
|
|
Epic copy-pasta! A Call for Consensus
James Hilliard
Pool/Farm Admin
BitmainWarranty
Poolboy more like. FFS. do you disagree with there open letter? would you feel better if i signed it?  |
|
|
|
Epic copy-pasta!
3.In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
everyone wants a blocksize increase |
|
|
|
Epic copy-pasta! A Call for Consensus
Over the past few months there has been significant attention within the bitcoin ecosystem and beyond on what is commonly referred to as the “block size issue” — the size and scale of bitcoin blocks. There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together to chart an effective path to resolve this challenge and agreed on five positions we hope will guide the larger community as we move forward together.
The following are five key points that we have all agreed on.
1.We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
2.We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
3.In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
4.We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
5.We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.
Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoin is strong and transformational. By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.
Together, we are:
Phil Potter
Chief Strategy Officer
Bitfinex
Valery Vavilov
CEO
BitFury
Alex Petrov
CIO
BitFury
James Hilliard
Pool/Farm Admin
BitmainWarranty
Yoshi Goto
CEO
BitmainWarranty
Alex Shultz
CEO
BIT-X Exchange
Bobby Lee
CEO
BTCC
Samson Mow
COO
BTCC
Robin Yao
CTO
BTCT & BW
Ronny Boesing
CEO
CCEDK ApS
Obi Nwosu
Managing Director
Coinfloor
Mark Lamb
Founder
Coinfloor
Wang Chun
Admin
F2Pool
Marco Streng
CEO
Genesis Mining
Marco Krohn
CFO
Genesis Mining
Oleksandr Lutskevych
CEO
GHash.IO & CEX.IO
Lawrence Nahum
CEO
GreenAddress
Eric Larchevêque
CEO
Ledger
Jack Liao
CEO
LIGHTNINGASIC & BitExchange
Charlie Lee
Creator
Litecoin
Guy Corem
CEO
Spondoolies-Tech
Davide Barbieri
CTO
TheRockTrading
Michael Cao
CEO
Zoomhash
如果你想要读中文版，请点击这里。
source ? |
|
|
|
Here's my uneducated opinion on SegWit:
It's better than nothing. It seems like a poor design idea to make such a complicated alteration of the protocol, but it aids scaling. Seems riskier than changing a 1 to a 2, but if it works on TestNet, I'll play along. I do not oppose SegWit and welcome it, despite it being a very poor substitute for bigger blocks.
If there is a rough consensus attack ongoing, it means the bad guys wants us to squabble over how to scale so much that we don't scale. They will support one side only until it looks like it's going to win and then support the other side. Even if there is not a rough consensus PsyOp, the effect is the same if we can't compromise.
I don't hate Core. I am not married to Classic. I want a scaling solution. I'm not naive enough to think I'll get everything I want.
Should SegWit be a hard fork or a soft fork? I prefer a hard fork but I don't really care.
Should we have SegWit or 2 MB? I prefer 2MB but I don't really care.
Should we have 2MB once and see what happens or a 2-4-8 schedule? I prefer the latter, but don't care.
Should we run upgraded Core or Classic? I prefer Classic but don't really care.
Just end this crap. If we can do this, I'll close my short and help pump. If there is no solution in place and the market keeps pumping anyway, My short will blow up and I'll start liquidating my cold storage.
i think most poeple like you want some kind of scaling one way or another, they don't really care which way it gets done. i'll admit i will go along with pretty much whatever too, until then i'll bitch and complain about what i think should be. selling coins based on this seems a little premature, some kind of scaling is bound to happen... i'm going to stick with my original plan to sell the news that core devs have "Done it!". ill buy back once poeple realize we aren't out of the woods. You've told me before that you don't ever trade all of your BTC portfolio, and I hope it's true this time, as well. Accordingly, I hope that you are betting both ways.. rather than all or nothing. I'm not sure if I have the definitions correct, exactly; however, at this time, I am about 93.75% long (my BTC portfolio in BTC) and about 6.25% short (my BTC portfolio in $$). for sure i will not sell everything, But I will get more aggressive with my sells now that price is high enough for me to comfortably handle missing the mark and getting left behind, a bag full of fiat is not a terrible consolation prize... ( remember i'm targeting 750 ish ) I am similarly positioned at this time, I happen to have a few hundred dollars left on 1 exchange thats it. i went from 80% in, to 99% in last week or was it the week b4. Sure, each of us needs to find our own comfort level that's for sure, and my time in this bitcoin investing (and more recently attempts trading) is only a couple of years for investing and only about 5 months for attempts at trading. The movement above the $200s really helped in that regard to make it easier to sell some and to have some of the BTC investment in dollars and some in BTC. At first when I started to sell some of my BTC, I got a little bit nervous that the price would go up, and then I don't have as many BTC. I still get a bit nervous when the price goes up and I have some dollars in my BTC allocated funds, but I've kind of figured out a system to attempt to continuously keep a sufficient quantity of fiat in the account (in case the price goes does that I can profit), which has caused me to become less nervous regarding whether I have enough BTC (even if, perhaps, I may at some point get down to 90% BTC and the price is going up). I am personally coming to the conclusion that a guy has really got to put these principles to practice over and over again in order to figure out his comfort level, and I am continuously learning - yet we also, from time to time, will witness in these here forums that very experienced traders will make some bad calls and allocate a bit poorly. I personally feel that I have a fairly conservative approach, and when I attempt to teach my approach to some other people IRL, people can be stubborn as fuck. They assert that they are attempting to follow my approach, but they revert to their own ways and they tweak and in the end, they gotta get their comfort level, and I assert that they got to get to their own place by practice and actual application. For example, right now, I would prefer to get my portfolio closer to 95% BTC and 5% $$ or even 96% BTC and 4% $$; however, my other philosophy is to attempt to buy BTC on the way down and to sell BTC on the way up, so if the price of BTC goes up from here in a considerable way before I am able to buy more, then I will be forced to sell, which will cause my allocation to approach 90% BTC and 10% $$. Not exactly preferable, but I am not going to complain when the price of BTC is going up.. and let's say if the price of BTC shoots up (like it did for the $502 upsurge), then I will have to become nervous again in deciding how much of my BTC holdings to sell... maybe 5% or maybe 10%, but probably, unless I clearly recognize a reversal, I will err on the side of selling a low amount of BTC, just in case it goes up more. In any event, I think that these kinds of scenarios take practice to improve reallocating on the fly and attempting not to get too nervous about it, while it's happening.. But in my thinking, you do sound quite a bit too much allocated into BTC (for my own comfort level and apparently too much for your own comfort level too, and maybe that explains some of your earlier comments of frustration?) trading profitably isn't hard, if you're not human! the biggest mistake poeple make when they start trading bitcoin, is not sticking to their plan and get swept away in the emotional roller coaster. billyjoeallen is a good trader, you know how i know, he said this: billyjoeallen, get the fuck off the forums, and close your short!
BFX will close it for me when I get force liquidated. IDK where get got this kind of resolve... but this is the trade mark of a good trader. was his call to sell 360+ good? fuck no! but reversing that position now would be MUCH worst. but its REALLY hard to accept that fact, most poeple would have covered by now. maybe a week from now FUD will be strong again price below 400, and THEN he can think about taking a loss ( or small profit who knows ). until then it only make sense to HODL or add more to the position. cold unfeeling calculated, thats what is required. if you FEEL the price is going one way or another and act, your going to get #rect no matter what happens, price could range between 300-500 over and over and you will still manage to lose big. also note he is basing his trade on a specific speculation " shit will hit the fan, when we try to scale bitcoin " not some technical chart BS. with that speculation in mind he formulated a plan and is sticking to it, until his speculation is invalided ( in his case he leveraged so another possibility is he "blows up." ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
