... and who increases bitcoin utility?
deadbeats ranting and raving on forums about how terrible all the devs are ... or developers adding features, tools, layers, wallets, protocol extensions?
Only clueless dogs bite the hands that feed them.
rah-de-rah rant-de-rant rah Core gets no special credit for just doing their damn jobs, especially when they aren't doing them. noone gets to tell devs what they can and can't do ... you choose who you follow, the genuine or the charlatans and deceivers what is your "damned job" (besides ranting on here about how bad core devs are)? I would even invest/help to create some bitcoin businesses if I knew how much blockspace I could use. There would be huge potential for title registry/xfer, equities exchanges, smart contracts, etc, but I would need to know what sort of fees I'd be paying and to be certain my transaction wouldn't be locked up for days if I guessed wrong. You could do all of this on namecoin blockchain for free with as good as security as you'll ever need for these functions ... no, I suspect that your problem isn't that "can't start mah bidness without bigger blocks" ... it's just that your a disaffected trash talker who has found a convenient cause-de-jour to rant about. poeple don't realize this but you can easily have the blockchain record a 5GB file with a 256btye TX just hash your file and dump that hash on the blockchain now anyone can validate the 5GB file. i think businesses looking to use the blockchain for timestamps and record keeping are doing it wrong. they should use the blockchain to record the proof of existence and authenticity only, sure if you upload the whole file to the blockchain you get the same effect, but it's not necessary. a system that creates 1 TX on blockchain in order to timestamp every single "whatever" is nutty. but i've said this b4, and i'll say it again, if they pay the appropriate fee i'm ok with them using it incorrectly. |
|
|
|
I don't see what is wrong... bitcoin is in a pretty decent place right now, no?
the only real problem right now is all the uneducated complaining about scalability. makes us look very conflicted... but in reality we are all ready to say "I prefer X but Y is good too". segwit in may, and then we go and push for a HF 2MB again when blocks become full again. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.
Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s... So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s? Yeah, I'm guessing too.  if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size shit could hit the fan? who knows... Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters. Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no? I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now. So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no? Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured. hahahahahhaha  I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually. I was hoping Todd would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him, classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level. I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view. ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you? time is costly as fuck. Most of the time, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I think that you bring a lot to the table, even if I may not agree. However, in this line of discussion, you seem to have gone nearly completely bonkers, and for what reason I don't know. It is like you seem obsessed with your ideas, and really they seem to be out there in their speculation and exaggerations that are frequently reading way too much into a variety of factors, including some of the evidence that you are presenting to support your conclusions. For argument sake, let's say that currently transaction fees are somewhat open, discretionary and they can be free, at times, or range between $0 and $.25, depending on the service or how much the sender wants to include. But probably the average reasonable fee for larger transactions (excluding micro-transactions for the moment for the sake of argument) is around $.08 per transaction. a 100x increase would put the average at $8 per transaction, and that is quite outrageous, but really, I believe that you are speculating way too much. We got a long way to know for sure until we can figure out how much the transaction fees are going to be under a variety of scenarios, and if there is going to be some variation for size of the transaction... sending $10 value versus sending $1million... or a variety of other amounts. you misunderstand LN will be free ( or nearly free ) i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel... 0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking ya ~100X more expensive... hahahahahaha... That's some pretty creative cost calculations and levity added to the equation... In any event, LN is quite a ways into the future anyhow. Just think about all the time each of us wastes in these various forums... (almost 65 days of my life for me, at the moment as i type).  And, I wonder if I should back off my earlier tentative assessment that you may have transitioned into: A LITTLE BONKERS. i'm nearly at 1 year. can you blame me for going bonkers? |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.
Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s... So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s? Yeah, I'm guessing too. if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size shit could hit the fan? who knows... Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters. Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no? I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now. So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no? Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured. hahahahahhaha I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually. I was hoping Todd would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him, classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level. I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view. ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you? time is costly as fuck. Most of the time, I really enjoy reading your posts, and I think that you bring a lot to the table, even if I may not agree. However, in this line of discussion, you seem to have gone nearly completely bonkers, and for what reason I don't know. It is like you seem obsessed with your ideas, and really they seem to be out there in their speculation and exaggerations that are frequently reading way too much into a variety of factors, including some of the evidence that you are presenting to support your conclusions. For argument sake, let's say that currently transaction fees are somewhat open, discretionary and they can be free, at times, or range between $0 and $.25, depending on the service or how much the sender wants to include. But probably the average reasonable fee for larger transactions (excluding micro-transactions for the moment for the sake of argument) is around $.08 per transaction. a 100x increase would put the average at $8 per transaction, and that is quite outrageous, but really, I believe that you are speculating way too much. We got a long way to know for sure until we can figure out how much the transaction fees are going to be under a variety of scenarios, and if there is going to be some variation for size of the transaction... sending $10 value versus sending $1million... or a variety of other amounts. you misunderstand LN will be free ( or nearly free ) i'm saying there's a huge hidden cost to using LN, that cost is the time you'll need to get your head around the current state of your payment channel... 0.08$ fee or 30mins of thinking ya ~100X more expensive... |
|
|
|
The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.
I agree with you that quickly jacking up the blocksize to 2, 4, 8 Mb within short order will both: 1) Grow The network Faster in the short term 2) Likely grow the market cap of Bitcoin Faster in the short term at the cost of ... 1) Setting a precedent that a small majority of 75% can impose changes on a minority 2) Setting a direction where the community finds simply increasing the blocksize whenever more capacity is needed is acceptable instead of finding more novel solutions that have less negative tradeoffs 3) Escalate node and mining centralization 4) Make using Bitcoin over TOR more difficult 5) Delaying or ignoring the need for better solutions where the main chain is treated like a settlement layer You are insinuating that we oppose larger blocks , which is simply not true for many. We want larger blocks done right. Jacking up the blocksize prematurely , regardless of it eventually happening , will have the above tradeoffs. These things aren't a secret and I am not ashamed to admit them. how much damage has not doing anything cost bitcoin image? todd saying shit like " bitcoin doesn't scale just accept it " how many hundreds of millions are we willing to throw away postponing the inevitable? |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.
Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s... So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s? Yeah, I'm guessing too. if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size shit could hit the fan? who knows... Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters. Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no? I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now. So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no? Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured. hahahahahhaha I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually. I was hoping Todd would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him, classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level. I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view. ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you? time is costly as fuck. |
|
|
|
Todd implied a one line change in his interview
ANOTHER LIE?
You sure have a funny way of reading between the lines. I didn't hear those insinuations at all. start at @30:35 " ... but the change itself is surprisingly small ..." to me a surprisingly small change implies max a few changes to 1 file. he says that its safer to do segwit then change the MAXBLOCKSIZE define trud manure, every word, trud manure |
|
|
|
folks? still that block-discussion going on?
isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.
but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.
so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.
Feel free to try to change the subject. But Adam might bite your hand.  haha! hey adam, how about some soccertalk? i heard manchester united got sacked tonight? lol sorry guys, i listen to the interview https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-toddand i had to express my frustrations. get me on the phone with petter todd, and hell hang up in under 5 mins, i wouldn't be able to stop myself " why are you going against what most poeple agree on, bigger blocks? what do you mean small miner will need to start using pools? why you lying to me you BEEP BEEPING BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEPING BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP " ok all done. lets go back to charts |
|
|
|
folks? still that block-discussion going on?
isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.
but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.
so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.
 |
|
|
|
Wall Street doesn't give a toss about decentralization. If it turns out the market doesn't either, eventually a competing hard fork will take Core's place.
Smallblockers want to maintain node decentralization by centralizing code development. I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer. everyone codes whatever feather they want miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on. core is going to start using this method soon. ( or they said they would? another lie???) |
|
|
|
I told you |
|
|
|
SegWit is a major overhaul
Todd implied a one line change in his interview ANOTHER LIE? |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.
Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s... So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s? Yeah, I'm guessing too. if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size shit could hit the fan? who knows... Yeah, but Todd is just one of the voices of the core supporters. Maybe he is vocalizing the general direction of core, but really if he were to assert "never" anything related to blocksize, he is going to be discredited, no? I mean any "never" is conditioned on a large number of variables, and if he were just expecting that there are going to be other work arounds, he really does not know how it is going to play out 6 months from now or even 2 years from now. So "never" may end up translating into 6 months, when conditions change, and when the situation needs to be reevaluated, no? Adam, you really seem to be getting caught up on this Peter Todd thing and even this sense of emergency that we need 2mb now... it's as if you and BJA have traded accounts, because at the moment, even BJA is sounding a bit more measured. hahahahahhaha I was under the impression core would bump limit eventually. I was hoping Todd would confirm that, he didn't, if anything i feel he never wants to touch it, and wants LN to be the solution, that seems to be his end game. and he's willing to use FUD to get people agreeing with him, classic isn't acting with any more class, but thats no excuse to sink to their level. I don't think we need 2MB NOW or everything is going to fall apart, but it has to be in the cards, or everything will eventually fall apart. thats my feeling, cheep TX is absolutely necessary for the network to keep growing, thats my view. |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen's short doesn't seem so ridiculous today.
Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s... So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s? Yeah, I'm guessing too. if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size shit could hit the fan? who knows... |
|
|
|
todd's crap about 2MB adversely affecting the mining landscape is insulting. does anyone actually believe that?
every time i've ask poeple to show me 1 small minner not already mining at a pool, they turn to poop throwing.
I'd like to see todd throw some poop, or admit he misspoke.
Are you reading into his comments ? Where did he say that solo miners would need to flee to pools at 2MB ? Are you going to also accuse Gavin of lying when he suggests there could be up to a 40% node drop off (solo miners run full nodes too) worse possible outcome with 2MB blocksizes? yes i am forced to read between the lines a bit https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-todd@ 19:30 he doesn't give a specific MB number at which point this problems a real problem for miners but to me ( given everything else he says ) he's using to reasoning to justify not bumping the limit ever. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
