|
21 will release the library for it to be used on any device.
This is not an implementation of the Lightning Network but a lighter unidirectional version.
|
|
|
|
..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, dear |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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.
bwahaha what an idiot you are  did you spend all these years only looking at chart and not bothering to understand how the stuff works? |
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
What's this regarding block #398364? Any news?
Deleted by the Politbüro in r/pyongjang forum, but those small brains can't delete it from the Bitcoin Blockchain. Is it time to panic now? Basically a bunch of tards spent their lunch money on getting a block mined Mind you, the actual block was 101kb!!! Apparently we really need these bigger blocks YESTERDAY!!!! Talk about throwing money out the window, you Gavinistas never learn! |
|
|
|
 #REKT |
|
|
|
Yes, stupidity still holding strong the last few weeks, while the altcoin market cap surprisingly doubled.
You mean the pump & dump that lost 20% overnight  |
|
|
|
Yep I know, this is better than Lightning Network. Lightning network requires a third party. This thing is P2P.
-edit-
This has nothing to do with the fork. What's your point?
What are you even saying !?!? Lightning network requires hubs run by third parties, not this approach. FROM 21.CO ARTICLE YOU LINKED or the highly anticipated Lightning Network (for which payment channels are a building block and hubs aren’t needed). Lightning network is this stuff on steroid. Which requires a third party. No it doesn't what are you stupid? |
|
|
|
Yep I know, this is better than Lightning Network. Lightning network requires a third party. This thing is P2P.
-edit-
This has nothing to do with the fork. What's your point?
What are you even saying !?!? Lightning network requires hubs run by third parties, not this approach. FROM 21.CO ARTICLE YOU LINKED or the highly anticipated Lightning Network (for which payment channels are a building block and hubs aren’t needed). Lightning network is this stuff on steroid. |
|
|
|
Yep I know, this is better than Lightning Network. Lightning network requires a third party. This thing is P2P.
-edit-
This has nothing to do with the fork. What's your point?
What are you even saying !?!? At a certain point, complementary scaling solutions may need to be found — such as a hub-and-spoke model that would allow for each device to establish one channel to a hub and then exchange with all other devices connected to that hub or interoperable hubs, or the highly anticipated Lightning Network (for which payment channels are a building block and hubs aren’t needed). |
|
|
|
This is not the Lightning network. Can you read? The same ideas apply to the technology we’ve implemented for Bitcoin micropayments, which is called micropayment channels or payment channels. The tech has a long history in Bitcoin — it was actually originally imagined by Satoshi Nakamoto when he designed two features called nSequence and Locktime, and a variant of it was later implemented by Matt Corallo and several other developers in BitcoinJ. At a certain point, complementary scaling solutions may need to be found — such as a hub-and-spoke model that would allow for each device to establish one channel to a hub and then exchange with all other devices connected to that hub or interoperable hubs, or the highly anticipated Lightning Network (for which payment channels are a building block and hubs aren’t needed). Jesus you f0rkers are ever desperate. Gavin is taking a vacation, maybe you should too? |
|
|
|
Could you please finally once and for all admit that bip101 is off the table https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/329For the longest time now you have argued black and blue that that XT is rekt. Now we finally have the evidence that you need. It's been a long wait and we need to thank everyone that has been so patient. Finally we can put to bed the idea that XT=bip101 and focus on the fact that XT is just one of several clients that supports the block size increase. As the Wu Tang Clan might put it "The Chinese miner ultimatum ain't nothin' ta fuck wit' " Tick tock You spend too much time over at the mental ward. It is pretty sad to see you go down that road. You still think this is about the blocksize? Heh, cute.  https://medium.com/@bramcohen/double-billing-is-not-healthy-competition-b698c345b11e#.88slddy5lNow f0rk off back to your lair will ya? |
|
|
|
There is something positive we can deduce from this letter. This group of miners is clearly demanding that Core gives them a date for a hardfork blocksize increase within three weeks. I suspect that if Core fails to deliver this request/demand from the miners I suspect they will switch over to classic or just change the max blocksize parameter in their own custom node software themselves like they said they would. There was a very good post by Dr Washington Sanchez regarding this letter, thought I would post it here since I suspect some people here at least will appreciate its sanity. The pool administrators who have signed this statement represent ~90% of the hashing power on the network, but this does not necessarily represent the miners themselves.
I advise any Bitcoin miners belonging to these pools, who feel misrepresented by this statement, to join pools (or form them) that will advance Bitcoin’s hard fork to 2 MB.
Bitcoin Core have had ample opportunity for over a year to schedule a hard fork to increase in the block size. It has taken a very real threat of a hard fork for them to signal progress on this front.
Segregated witness, while an awesome improvement to protocol, is not a long-term scaling solution. Moreover, it is a smokescreen for Bitcoin Core’s true intention to limit transaction capacity using the block size. This is euphemistically referred to as creating a ‘fee market’.
In reality, the use of the block size to retard the transaction capacity of Bitcoin, to increase fees, remains a value Bitcoin Core has not deviated from. Unless they explicitly abandon the idea of creating a fee market, Bitcoin Core will achieve a real hard fork in the economic properties of Bitcoin.
Furthermore, a token increase in the block size now by Bitcoin Core will only plague the community in the future, as they have no intention of keeping the block size comfortably above the market demand for on-chain transactions. Feeling uneasy about your "economic majority" now are you? Of course you'd post that piece of garbage from Dr. Wacko. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
