"bitcoin dost scale, we need to just accept that and use lighting"  |
|
|
|
..GTFO...this little cargocult...posting about moon... go get fukt...isn't buying this shit.
Your words can't hold back the market, brg444.  Hey Peter! Still alive? How's that BU going? How many nodes now? 10? 15? Yes yes, you'll get your 2MB chain, but..... not tonight, dearsays who? can some PLEASE FUCKING MAKE AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT |
|
|
|
http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdfOur results suggest that reparameterization
of block size and intervals should be viewed only as a first
increment toward achieving next-generation, high-load blockchain protocols...
even the geniuses want bigger blocks. but there really smart and understand its only the first step. basically what i've been saying all along... i don't shoot for keeping requirement so low so i end up with higher numbers for abs max block size. wtv man, why is todd not on the same page?
|
|
|
|
don't you geniuses has a better forum to chat on? or did you get kicked out for being such a dick?
I do but I like to come in here once in a while to hurt your feelings.  i'm honored. |
|
|
|
they change their position as often as i do.
you probably have some data showing that smaller miners become handicapped by larger blocks nothing more.
show me this "scientific data"
Sure, here's one of the papers: http://fc16.ifca.ai/bitcoin/papers/CDE+16.pdfObservation 1 (Throughput limit)
Given the current overlay network and today’s 10 minute average block interval, the block size should not exceed 4MB.
A 4MB block size corresponds to a throughput of at most 27 transactions/sec.
Observation 2 (Latency limit)
Given today’s overlay network, to retain at least 90% effective throughput and fully utilize the bandwidth of the network, the block interval should not be significantly smaller than 12s There's also the data obtained by Jonathan Toomim from his testnet tests and his survey of Chinese miners. Like I said, you're so far behind with regards to this stuff you might as well keep concerning yourself with the price and leave the other stuff to competent adults. We all appreciate your role as a cheerleader, sincerely, we do. don't you geniuses has a better forum to chat on? or did you get kicked out for being such a dick? We assume that it is desired to maintain nearly the current degree of decentralization, fucking easy to make up BS data when you start off with BS assumptions, what excalty this line means and how it effects the data is unclear. |
|
|
|
EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.
From what I saw it seems like bigger block is at least canted by all users. It's the miners who don't want it? the chinese miner, along with everyone else, were ready for 8MB. the block size increase has been pushed back for one reason alone, the core dev team deems it unsafe. who am i to disagree? i'm no one... but gavin isn't no one, and fucking big chunks of hashing power isn't no one either.... CORE MUST DIE! they forced our hand, it's them or us.... We have scientific data showing that the network can't handle much more than 3mb right now so yeah.... GTFO You people seriously need to get out of this little cargocult @ bitcointalk, there's a world out there with science and stuff. It's very cool but admittedly it's harder to figure out than looking at charts all day and posting about moon. Did ya'll not read the miners letters basically telling that Classic and their fork YESTERDAY!!!! can go get fukt. Even Jeff Garzik isn't buying this shit. they change their position as often as i do. you probably have some data showing that smaller miners become handicapped by larger blocks nothing more. show me this "scientific data" |
|
|
|
EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.
From what I saw it seems like bigger block is at least canted by all users. It's the miners who don't want it? the chinese miner, along with everyone else, were ready for 8MB. the block size increase has been pushed back for one reason alone, the core dev team deems it unsafe. who am i to disagree? i'm no one... but gavin isn't no one, and fucking big chunks of hashing power isn't no one either.... CORE MUST DIE! they forced our hand, it's them or us.... |
|
|
|
EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe.
step out of your bubble for a minute kiddo. maybe start by paying us a visit over at core slack? did you not see mining power vote the other month, votes for >1MB block in some form or another got to like 75% how about that open letter with pretty much every big bitcoin biz saying " we want bigger blocks " everyone wants to increase block size.... the fucking chinese we're ready to agree to 8MB blocks before todd went ape shit not saying todd's reservation are completely unwarranted, i just hate that he seems unwilling to make any kind of compromise. and the you listen to this interview and he basically says " due to FUD i don't want to touch blocksize " , there FUD surrounding segwit's impl. but segwit he's willing to risk it for segwit because lighting!the conflict of interest could not be more clear. |
|
|
|
when he says "give companies time to transition" he means "give companies that rely on cheep transaction,time to close up shop, becuase lighting wont be ready for years"
it feels like he knows lighting won't be ready in time, so he needs to HOLD back any blocksize increase now because he knows once we start to bump it up and the system doesn't implode we'll just keep doing it, and lighting will be drastically less useful.
I don't get it. You start bitching AFTER non-core has lost? i was bitching from day 1 but at one point i though core hinted that they would eventually bump up block limit, that + segwit , and i was sold. i was hoping this interview would confrim that Eventually core is willing to rise block size but he seems hell bend on finding ( or flat out making up ) problems with rising blocksize and saying that the trade off isn't worth it. this kinda fucking pissed me off. EVERYONE wants bigger blocks, except for these guys, and it's not because they are all knowing gods and know what's best for us. there are many poeple that understand the nitty gritty details who agree bigger blocks is safe. Show me 1 person that isn't involved with blockstreem, saying 1mb is as far as bitcoin should ever go. the only reason core is still in power is due to first mover adv. IMO |
|
|
|
|
when he says "give companies time to transition" he means "give companies that rely on cheep transaction,time to close up shop, becuase lighting wont be ready for years"
it feels like he knows lighting won't be ready in time, so he needs to HOLD back any blocksize increase now because he knows once we start to bump it up and the system doesn't implode we'll just keep doing it, and lighting will be drastically less useful.
|
|
|
|
says brg444  i have a problem with when he implies that a small or medium size miner would get affected by 2mb block and move to pools as if small or medium size minners solo mine. i mean come on todd show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he then talks about how we shouldn't touch 1MB and use lighting, that really ticked me off. other then that the rest of the interview was easier to digest Yeah, well clearly you don't understand how this stuff works so your opinion is as good as the hobo down the street's ok prove it show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he lied pure and simple Let me repeat: you don't know how this stuff works. Keep your eyes on the scoreboard, this stuff is way beyond you. Look! Price is rising! poeple should note that brg444 is known to be a bought and paid for blockstream shithead. |
|
|
|
says brg444 i have a problem with when he implies that a small or medium size miner would get affected by 2mb block and move to pools as if small or medium size minners solo mine. i mean come on todd show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he then talks about how we shouldn't touch 1MB and use lighting, that really ticked me off. other then that the rest of the interview was easier to digest Yeah, well clearly you don't understand how this stuff works so your opinion is as good as the hobo down the street's ok prove it show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he lied pure and simple Let me repeat: you don't know how this stuff works. Keep your eyes on the scoreboard, this stuff is way beyond you. Look! Price is rising! oh look at that buy buy BUY! @_@ |
|
|
|
says brg444 i have a problem with when he implies that a small or medium size miner would get affected by 2mb block and move to pools as if small or medium size minners solo mine. i mean come on todd show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he then talks about how we shouldn't touch 1MB and use lighting, that really ticked me off. other then that the rest of the interview was easier to digest Yeah, well clearly you don't understand how this stuff works so your opinion is as good as the hobo down the street's ok prove it show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he lied pure and simple |
|
|
|
ok so i listen to the first few min of this, it pissed me off, then i turned it off and tried to go to bed... i can't sleep... i want to slap this TODD guy in the face i want him to apologize to everyone for lying, and FUDing in order to push his lighting network horse shit and then i want him to resign from bitcoin i never liked what he had to say but this is too much. listening to the full thing now... Fuck out of here, Peter Todd is the man. says brg444 i have a problem with when he implies that a small or medium size miner would get affected by 2mb block and move to pools as if small or medium size minners solo mine. i mean come on todd show me 1 small or medium size miner that doesn't already mine at a pool. he then talks about how we shouldn't touch 1MB and use lighting, that really ticked me off. other then that the rest of the interview was easier to digest |
|
|
|
ok so i listen to the first few min of this, it pissed me off, then i turned it off and tried to go to bed... i can't sleep... i want to slap this TODD guy in the face i want him to apologize to everyone for lying, and FUDing in order to push his lighting network horse shit and then i want him to resign from bitcoin i never liked what he had to say but this is too much. listening to the full thing now... |
|
|
|
crowdfunding and peer to peer lending this is what will kill banks bitcoin will facilitate this, poeple won't loan / barrow BTC, ( thats just crazy seeing how price swings are wild, and bitcoin is deflationary ), But they will use the BTC highway. its going to take time, and more adoption, but it appears to already be happening poeple are refinancing loans, by leveraging the "BTC highway" check this out: https://btcjam.com/listings/55943-credit-card-refinancingits a tiny market right now, but the idea is good, i think this can really work on a larger scale. |
|
|
|
fake
it's all over the net it's true paying 17,000$ to hackers is more efficient than paying 20,000$ to completely reboot everything from non existing backups. |
|
|
|
|
you might have multiple personality disorder?
in anycase you really should keep >90% of your coins offline
go to : bitaddress.org and print yourself a few paper wallets.
|
|
|
|
|
more noise, just ignore it...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
