but you refuse to offer it.
lol. that may be the miners' main concern. they are also working off mere perception. they can be wrong -- very wrong -- about what users want. they are also motivated by short term profit, and game theory says they may be willing to sacrifice long term interest (happy users) if short term gains (i.e. from double spending) are large enough. the relative anonymity of miners and the potentially fly-by-night nature of pools adds to this.
again, miners interests =/= user interests. miners have a distinct incentive -- particularly if fees are too low -- to double spend. users have no interest in this whatsoever.
IMO you're totally over exaggerating the disconnect between user interests and miner interests. Miners have a long term stake in the game, they have an investment in hardware that takes them about a year to to start getting a ROI most of them are constantly reinvesting in new hardware which solidifies their long term stake. if anything users might be the ones that are short sighted, they can buy-in and sell-out at a moment's notice. users could buy now, push of segwit + LN and then sell the moment its released, they might not care how segwit +LN changes the game, they only care about the short term profit a smooth deployment of a scaling solution might potentially have. you simply keep ignoring contexts in which clearly miners interests diverge from users.
here, a RL example: there was a time when a mining pool got ~50% hashing power, they IMMEDIATELY took steps to separate the hashing power, because they knew it made users concerned. they could have gotten >51% hashing power and started to double spend like mad fools for short term profit, they didnt! how can we ensure this survey is honest and representative? i can produce such a survey and i assure you, it won't be.
you try your best to make sure your sample is representative of the community at large example for ever female bitcoiner you survey, you survey 100 males.  its imperfect but... meh. you have to look at the hashing power voting as an educated guess / personal preference. yeah, that's all it is. a guess. sorry but not interested in allowing consensus changes based on today's "guess" by miners. the idea is that if we put all the best guess / preferences together we get a very good guess. the wisdom of the crowd type thing |
|
|
|
-snip-
say you rent 60% hashing power and fork to 2MB block while >75% of users disagree with it, they will simply ignore your fucked up blockchain and continue hashing away with 40% on what they consider the valid chain.
That is exactly what Classic is proposing. Replace 60% with 75% and you have the same answer. Basically, the BIP that Gavin has proposed is just designed very wrongly. It goes against the things that have been learned over time. With a grace period of 28 days, there is almost a certainty that the majority of the ecosystem would be left behind. no? 75% are ready and willing, and then 28 days is plenty of time for the other miners that voted against it to get ready. worst case sanoir only 25% "get left behind". but its not as tho that 25% can't simply say " OH Shit i should have upgraded in time! better late than never..." maybe you mean the non-mining full nodes... i think poeple like coinbase and blockchain.info, will upgrade promptly. the only poeple slow to upgrade will be home users that dont really need to have their wallet running all the time. these users, I'm not at all concerned with, its not critical they upgrade no one depends on their wallet running smoothly, they will run up oneday they will open up their wallet and it'll be like " you out of date please upgrade, or you won't be able to connect to the network. " kinda like team viewer does to me everytime i go to use it. not sure if bitcoin has this neat auto-update from the app. feather thing, it should be added in... |
|
|
|
how do you know 75% "will stick?" cuz gavin said so?
well hmm ya, he said a few words about 75% or 80% or 95% and i believe his reasoning is sound, and 75% is safe. in other words, you have no reasoning or logic to offer? i do. hashpower is totally irrelevant to user interests
nonsense how so? miners don't have the same interests as me. miners are interested in profit. that means a rational miner will double spend if it is profitable. you think that matches my interests as a user? users give value to the coins, if miners start double spending users wont value the coins, they will double spend worthless coins.... the miners main concern is how to best service the user base, the happier there users are the more valuable the coins they mine become. how do you know that at 60% hashpower, >75% of users will ignore the invalid chain, rather than updating to new rules? how do you know that 75% hashpower, >75% of users will change their consensus rules?
i dont think you're understanding me. if you have 60% of hashing power going against >75% of everyone else , everyone else will ignore the altcoin 60% hashing power created. imagine 60% rented hashing power forks 21million coin limit to 42milion coin limit... as a user you can chose 41million coin bitcoin running at 60% hashing power(which has been rented for limited time) or 21million coin bitcoin running at 40% which one would you pick O_o? yeah "against >75% of everyone else" is the problem. how would you even begin to determine who >75% of everyone else is, and what they want? based on your example, i think we can agree that no amount of hashpower can guarantee a successful fork. My example was with hash power known to be rented, renting 60% of bitcoin hashing power is impossible. I think generally hashing power represents the will of the community at large fairly well. miners want to service users as best they can, and so they act and vote accordingly. but in a case where hashing power is no reflective of user interest it will be known fast, and that change miners are pushing for will not stick. its easy to measure, survey 1000 random bitcoiners, and with that sample data you can get an approximate measurement of "everyone else" yes, create a new coin plox. that's a more honest route than trying to split the network with a controversial hard fork.
trying to fork bitcoin with anything less than 51% hashing power is just silly silly... 75% is minimal, 75% = safe bet everyone will follow suit but ya anything much less then that is kinda silly to even try. if you feel strongly about a change and you have less than 75% hashing power agreeing with you, the best thing to do is start an altcoin. again, how do you know that 75% is safe and that everyone will follow suit? i agree, start an altcoin if you cant achieve consensus. if you really are capable of achieving consensus, why set the bar at 75%? because at 95% 5% hashing power can veto changes and the dev process stalls. you have to look at the hashing power voting as an educated guess / personal preference. if you have 3 BIP's all trying to solve the same problem, all of which are valid and have their own pros and cons / trade offs, the fact that one of them gains 75% of the votes means that it is somehow superior in some way. if it gain >95% it would tend to indicate that there was somthing seriously wrong with the other BIPs. point is if all 3 BIP have roughly equal merit its impossible that consensus will ever be reached, and in truth miners are most likely expressing a preference by voting not necessarily meaning the are strongly opposed to the other BIPs. so wtf. let put this in context say segwit is released and it gains 60% hashing power does this mean the other 40% are strongly opposed to segwit? probably not... wait another few weeks and more discussions and understanding take place, and boom we have 76% hashing power, do we really need to wait for the other 24% hashing power? even if the remaining 24% were all strongly opposed to segwit, they pose no threat to us. |
|
|
|
Always bitcoin being "killed" by someone. But how? You never see a plausible method.  there's only 1 way to kill bitcoin outperform it and steal all the users. |
|
|
|
how do you know 75% "will stick?" cuz gavin said so?
well hmm ya, he said a few words about 75% or 80% or 95% and i believe his reasoning is sound, and 75% is safe. hashpower is totally irrelevant to user interests
nonsense how do you know that at 60% hashpower, >75% of users will ignore the invalid chain, rather than updating to new rules? how do you know that 75% hashpower, >75% of users will change their consensus rules?
i dont think you're understanding me. if you have 60% of hashing power going against >75% of everyone else , everyone else will ignore the altcoin 60% hashing power created. imagine 60% rented hashing power forks 21million coin limit to 42milion coin limit... as a user you can chose 41million coin bitcoin running at 60% hashing power(which has been rented for limited time) or 21million coin bitcoin running at 40% which one would you pick O_o? yes, create a new coin plox. that's a more honest route than trying to split the network with a controversial hard fork.
trying to fork bitcoin with anything less than 51% hashing power is just silly silly... 75% is minimal, 75% = safe bet everyone will follow suit but ya anything much less then that is kinda silly to even try. if you feel strongly about a change and you have less than 75% hashing power agreeing with you, the best thing to do is start an altcoin. |
|
|
|
because thats how bitcoin works... but in practice its impossible to fork bitcoin one way or the other simply because you have >51% hashing power you really need like 75% hashing power 75% users, 75% everyone involved in bitcoin onboard with you to make a HF change that will stick. say you rent 60% hashing power and fork to 2MB block while >75% of users disagree with it, they will simply ignore your fucked up blockchain and continue hashing away with 40% on what they consider the valid chain. thats why its so important to make you 1MB fans understand why 2MB is bigger and bigger is better. we can't do this without your understanding. if not our only choice will be to create a brand new coin... |
|
|
|
ever heard of IPv4 and IPv6?
thats a more suitable analogy to the blocksize problem...
segwit is NAT
2MB is IPv6
Ipv6 is horrible for privacy, it leaks MAC address. I`m sure the bitcoin classic has some totalitarian patches in it, like that blacklisting stuff? you can Sit behind NAT's security model with IPv6 too... |
|
|
|
well its a protocol they all adhere to which is very hard to HF... for the purposes of the analogy it fits. Wonder if you can recall anything before there was Safari, Mozilla and Chrome. That one player M$ did try very hard to screw up all sorts of standards by being "innovative" and more "user friendly" aka breaking compatibility. Document.all, marquee, ActiveX, VBScript... say these words to a senior web developer once and he will want to punch you in the face. Perhaps the most important reason that Mozilla won web developers to Firefox was to stick to the web standards(which they did not create), rather than creating their own. It's exactly because browser developers learnt a lesson from IE6 and thus make sticking to web standards a super political correctness, that we could have a uniform browsing experience regardless which browser we are using today. Needless to say, there are countless network protocols which leaves no room for maneuvering when it comes to implementation, you ever heard of anyone coming up with their own version of SSL/TLS protocol? ever heard of IPv4 and IPv6? thats a more suitable analogy to the blocksize problem... segwit is NAT 2MB is IPv6 Lighting network is UDP holepunching lmao |
|
|
|
I sent a friend 2BTC last night from my core wallet, and used 0.001 fee ( so around 50 cents), stupid transaction took 8 hours ( not to be confirmed, just to appear at all). Funny thing is, he sent me money via internet banking at the same time, and it arrived inside 2 hours!
Something is not working the way it is supposed to!
An unlikely claim. Please post the transaction ID. Ya totally full of shit. Unless the next block took two hours. i've done the mistake of sending a TX and then closing my client, your client will need to rebroadcast the TX to many nodes for it to propagate fast. if your poorly connected node, relaying to other poorly connected nodes, yes i can imagine how it would take a long time for the TX to fully propagate. altho 8 hours is kinda hard to believe... you must have been very badly connected if you can't keep your wallet up 90% of the time you shouldnt be running it, use a web based SVP wallet somthing like blockchain.info and you'll never run into these problems. |
|
|
|
I just can't see a moonshot until after SegWit because we're hard up against the blocksize limit.
it must happen before.... what will market do when segwit has been out for weeks and it its hit an impasse not able to gain more the 19% hashing power supporting it? CRASH! we must PUMP before we DUMP. Are you against segwit now? Wouldn't bet on network NOT supporting it once its out. i'm on the fence. at first i thought it was marvalous, then i found out more about it and realized it isn't magical, sure we'll get a effective block size incress, but only because we are changing how we calculate block size. it feels like i'm being fed BS twisted truths, to make me expect a massive change that will forever complicate bitcoin's code. the consequences to which are unknown. It incress node requirements by more or less the same as a 2MB HF. from what i've seen 2MB HF is a much better proposal if all you want to do is incress capacity. But if you want to setup bitcoin to become a settlement layer for lighting network segwit is the way to go. I disagree with the idea that bitcoin will become centralized as node cost become higher as usages grows. If we have 5000 nodes ran by poeple like MicroSoft, Bitpay, Bank of Canada, bittrex, coinbase, BTC4AmazonShit.com, etc etc... that is a plenty decentralized. i simply do not care if bitcoin becomes SO BIG, that it will not be easy to run a full node at home. I dont understand why segwit can't simply fix TX malleability and leave everything else alone. again i feel as tho i'm being fed half truth to accept and commit to a new trajectory for the project. |
|
|
|
I just can't see a moonshot until after SegWit because we're hard up against the blocksize limit.
it must happen before.... what will market do when segwit has been out for weeks and it its hit an impasse not able to gain more the 19% hashing power supporting it? CRASH! we must PUMP before we DUMP. |
|
|
|
VISA has a 2 month confirmation time, we'll be fine  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin stable, ETH about to crash hard (I hope so). Moved funds to exchange, hoping to catch a falling ethereal knife.  i'm targeting like 0.009. i guess we'll see a bunch of waves up and down before then, but 0.009-0.007 seems safe to me. |
|
|
|
|
oh now the drop in BTC price is making sense, MMM guy is cashing out his winnings
|
|
|
|
welcome to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
core should Sponsor Bitcoin Unlimited
|
|
|
|
i disagree, i believe that is a serious problem. i own a bunch bitcoins, however, i am not going to lie to myself and try to convince myself or anyone else that there is nothing wrong with bitcoin. clearly, to anyone with intelligence, there is a problem with bitcoin taking 75 minutes to clear. online business might find bitcoin useful, however, starbucks will find it annoying.
it takes 10mins to clear if you have the appropriate 5cent fee... |
|
|
|
gmax is going to have to do thing like AMA's and such, to really sell the idea.
He doesn't have to do anything. its going to be interesting to see how the network reacts to segwit being released... i wonder how much effort it will take to get that 95% they want |
|
|
|
Bears gonne get TRAINED!
openbazaar pump 3..2..1....
hasn't that been out for a few weeks? that was on testnet mode. now it's the real thing. it's still a bit hard to browse around the listings though. i wanted to try it a few months back. i'll get around to it at one point... |
|
|
|
Bears gonne get TRAINED!
openbazaar pump 3..2..1....
hasn't that been out for a few weeks? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
