All I want to know is if the core devs will allow miners to "vote" for the 2MB HF activation.
Definitely not. Miners do not decide hardforks, much less vote on them. so much for "Luke is focused on fulfilling the promise"  The HK roundtable included agreement on this point, that miners do not decide hardforks. It doesn't contradict it in any way. Even if it wasn't part of the document, this inability of miners to decide hardforks is an aspect inherent in the nature of hardforks, not something I nor anyone else has decided. so you're saying you think core will not/should not, add in the code required to allow miners to activate a HF with >75% hashing power. |
|
|
|
All I want to know is if the core devs will allow miners to "vote" for the 2MB HF activation.
Definitely not. Miners do not decide hardforks, much less vote on them. so much for "Luke is focused on fulfilling the promise" |
|
|
|
I understand that the 2MB HF will need a high % of mining backing it in order for it to activate, but i would like to know if core plans on adding in the code to allow this process to happen.
I don't want you to freak out or anything but Luke is focused on fulfilling the promise. Luke's opinion is also one that blocks should be limited to 0.5MB by miners right now. Additionally, it was made abundantly clear that the developers at that meeting do not speak for core. Thus your hopes for getting a consensus of core supporting Luke's HF proposal is very low, especially since there are so many other solutions on the table to increase capacity and scalability without the same tradeoffs. Now this would be the better way to convince developers to support an increase in the blocksize: 1) Figure out a method to encourage more decentralized nodes and decentralization of mining to alleviate their concerns. Developers have a clear understanding of the security vulnerabilities of bitcoin unlike the average user and see how vulnerable it is now, placate these fears with real solution or evidence and they will be much more likely to agree that increasing capacity with the blocksize is safe 2) Focus on helping layer 2 solutions like LN , payment channels, ect to increase capacity. "Luke is focused on fulfilling the promise" well thats good to know, I wonder if all the core devs will at least agree to allow this HF code in so that miners can at least TRY and get the 2MB HF activated. frankly i do not care that a few devs think that 1MB should not get bumped up, and i dont want to reason with them. there are many devs that think upping the limit is OK, there have been a few studies done, the most conservative of which concludes 4MB wouldn't have much effect on node decentralization and there have been many optimizations that gr8ly reduce the centralizing effect of bigger blocks (like thin blocks). We do not need support from ALL the devs, what we need is a huge amount of hashing power. All I want to know is if the core devs will allow miners to "vote" for the 2MB HF activation. |
|
|
|
@gmaxwell
will you comply with Antpool's demands and include the 2MB HF code into the next release?
The Agreement has nothing to do with Greg , Blockstream , or the rest of core devs that didn't participate. Luke has promised to deliver the code to fulfill the agreement by July, whether the miners and the community decide to use it or not is unknown. The earliest a HF will occur will be in July 2017 if the miners stick to the agreement so don't expect anything soon. Your question is odd because it assumes that Greg is running the show or even has commit access. He gave that up a long time ago. A question that would make sense in this context is asking each individual core devs their opinion. I understand that the 2MB HF will need a high % of mining backing it in order for it to activate, but i would like to know if core plans on adding in the code to allow this process to happen. I thought gmaxwell was one of the main driving forces behind core. you're right i should reword my question. @gmaxwell will you personally oppose Antpool's demands and include the 2MB HF code into the next release? do you believe core will put yield to Antpool's demands? |
|
|
|
|
@gmaxwell
will you comply with Antpool's demands and include the 2MB HF code into the next release?
|
|
|
|
|
7% of the hash rate is hashing with classic
|
|
|
|
SegWit or DIE! hard to believe core has so much support... |
|
|
|
the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.
It's already going to 2MB blocks + segwit with 2017 hard fork anyway, which should be an effective 3.x MB block size. That's why there's not much of a reason to make a big deal out of it unless someone tries to renig. Also, weak blocks make raising block size not an actual problem and weak blocks is already planned here: http://coinjournal.net/blockstream-president-adam-back-shares-roadmap-scaling-bitcoin/There's not even any argument that Bitcoin will or won't be scaled, it's just that people believe core is doing it too slowly, but that's just how it is when you actually have to develop and test things first for something where you make a mistake would implode billions of dollars. There is no guarantee it will happen it can only happen if mostly everyone wants it to happen. that much has been made clear as day in the past year. ( to the point were people are afraid nothing can ever happen because getting "mostly everyone" to agree is "impossible" ) when the HF happens and we get our first 2MB block 10mins later. people's heads will explode. dont kid yourself the 2MB HF will be a BIG DEAL. |
|
|
|
|
a lot of investors are not putting money into bitcoin, because they think that it might not be THE crypto 10 years from now,
they think it could be displaced by ETH or somthing like it.
once ETH falls apart while bitcoin increases capacity that FUD will be removed.
poeple will being to understand that bitcoin IS whatever we want it to be, and thats why nothing can displace it.
the big wow factor will be when >75% hashing power + economic majority HardFork bitcoin to 2MB blocks.
|
|
|
|
Yes. Let's just argue that Black is white.
You already have by arguing that a fixed cap on block size is anything other than identical to a resource with an inelastic supply. altho i dont believe a cap is nessary, i think it is not a good idea for miners to create blocks >4MB at this time. but minners know this, and since they are strongly incentivized to keep everyone happy they dont need a hard cap... But Core devs are playing it safe and enforcing a 1MB limit, they will NOT be able to enforce this limit for ever, miners are demanding HF code to be part of the next release and they will have it. we will have segwit + 2MB block this time next year. the order in which they get rolled out is not (very) relevant in the long term. Thanks to miners having a strong incentive to "keep everyone happy" some of them are demanding the 2M HF code to be put in place. the way i see it, this proves the bottom up governance of bitcoin is working pretty well.
>32,000$ in <2 years.
|
|
|
|
Newbium WOB previewProudly presenting a new tool, which -e.g. for Bitcoin- is aggregating all available orderbook data from 52 markets in 13 currencies on 27 exchanges.
(click for larger)We call the approach WOB = "world order book". Already working & useful, within our Newbium beta (preview). WOB Explanations: pt1 and pt2 --> Medium Blog, and Whitepaper (8 levels are planned) --> chat (soon) --> fully functional Preview beta: WOB within MVP (minimum viable product) for "view live data + trade" --> Crowdsale (ends May 31st), with Affiliate Program - please use this link, thx. Really interested to hear your opinion! Perhaps PM me geeky questions, and we later publish a summary.  Edit: retweet - thx.nice work, we'll keep an eye on it for you |
|
|
|
|
with a 1/2 trillion dollar market cap, each bitcoin will be worth ~32,000$
just say'n
|
|
|
|
|
lol isnt may 28th the scheduled collapse of ETH?
|
|
|
|
So even after taking out the one claim for $2.3 trillion, there are still $32 billion of claims... And $91m of assets. 32 billion $ you say? What are you smoking, I want some too...  It's about 415 million $ of accepted claims. But there is no mention of the 202k BTC auction, I am very disappointed...  The total amount claimed to date stands at 263,519,268,303,371 JPY, approximately $2,411,412,137,427 USD. there was 2,4Tillrion USD in Fiat on mtgox?!?!?! |
|
|
|
Between this "leak" of an unsolicited group email and the "crashing" of his club med roundtable, Queen Bruce proves he has a very naive view of what is and isn't private. its way to long and i didnt read, but i dont understand what you guys have against this dude. all i know of the guy besides this is, he hosted a meeting with all the devs in an attempt to get them on the same page. seems to me he's a rich dude that has invested interest in making bitcoin succeed and he's trying to help in whatever way he can. this latest attempt appears to be offering PR services for Core dev through the bitcoin foundation. what wrong with that? to me we're lucky to have him spending time and money on bitcoin. |
|
|
|
nice so we will have segwit + Block Size Increase THANK YOU antpool |
|
|
|
May 23 2016, still waiting for segwit  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
