The block size fork is not happening anymore, people has woken up from the scam, miners in china said no to Classic, we will stick with core, we will get 0.12 soon, and we will keep growing and improving.
Source please. |
|
|
|
ClasSick is dead before it's even born.
Amazing how well the amount of denigrating puns in a post holds an inverse correlation with the attention the opinions expressed therein deserve. |
|
|
|
Why would the big holders want to attack one of the chains? Their holdings are in both chains, and they can keep, move and sell them independently. Whatever value each branch of the coin has, attacking one branch will kill its value -- which will hurt the holders more than anyone else -- but is unlikely to raise the value of the other branch by the same amount.
The holders should *pray* for a proposed hard fork will EITHER fail quickly to gather any support, OR quickly achieve majority support and end with a clean non-eventful hard fork. Any fork attempt that does not resolve cleanly in one of these two ways can only harm the value of their holdings.
Didn't you kind of answer your own question? An unresolved fork would be bad for holders, so attacking the minority chain to destroy it would make sense if it's not too expensive. |
|
|
|
|
This doesn't merit a thread of its own, so here in the "lounge" it goes:
Is it possible to implement 2 MB blocks in different, incompatible ways? If, say, Bitcoin Classic got the support needed to trigger 2MB production to start, and Core also switched to 2MB blocks, could they still be incapable of operating on the same blockchain? I'm not saying it's likely to be done if possible, just curious.
|
|
|
|
I thought bitcoin was dead???
It's like a variation of schrodinger's cat, with the distinction that when you stop looking, it returns to a state of superposition. |
|
|
|
|
re Luke-JR and changing over to SHA3: The man seems to go out of his way to find causes to champion, the more hopeless, the better. I first remember paying attention to him when he was acticely pushing tonal notation for Bitcoin. At least that was relatively harmless, if eccentric.
|
|
|
|
|
Richy_T: Yer right, I read the first parahraph, tried parsing it as a joke and couldn't. Should've read the rest, too!
|
|
|
|
There probably won't be a hard fork to classic.
By April, core will have implemented 2MB+ blocks, by then the incentive to switch to classic will be low.
This whole development is worrisome though.
Core: RBF push, censoring on /r/bitcoin
Classic: no hardcore coders, what will really happen if they take over?....
For higher resilience, it would need several clients. One group of coders would be too easy to compromise.
So you're telling us Core is planning an increase to 2 MB blocks and Cconvert2G36 tells us Core devs have found 2 MB blocks bring a risk of an attack no-one knows how to defend against... One of you should check their sources! |
|
|
|
Without a blocksize limit fees will rise in relation to the interaction of the limit of the real world environment and the demand, and this is absolutely not a reason to impose a lower capacity on the system for starters.
This. The big issue isn't block size, it's that we're storing all the tx forever right now. That's the tree that we need to bark up, IMO. It's just inelegant right now. Hopefully a reasonable solution can be implemented or we'll see some kludge like automatic pruning of all tx created more than X blocks before... "Move your coins or lose 'em." Actually, only storing, say, 5 years worth of data would certainly simplify things... Now there's a flamewar to start. |
|
|
|
Even more: Adam once claimed that the LN would achieve 10'000 transactions for every blockchain transaction. Leaving aside what that would mean for the coin lock-in periods of the channels, the rate of 1:10'000 is so close to 0:10'000 that no one would notice if the LN just dropped bitcoin altogether, and from then on just shuffled its "cryptochecks" around indefinitely, without ever settling them.
Of course, LN users would never accept that. It would be like that time when the US government decided that dollars would no longer be convertible to gold or silver. We all remember the revolts in the streets, and the huge bonfires where enraged dollar holders burned their then-worthless bills. Right?
Conversely 1:10000 is so close to 0:10000 that you might as well just leave it on the Bitcoin blockchain. The benefit of not doing so would be negligible. I don't follow, smooth. Are you being sarcastic? |
|
|
|
Actually Lightning could use any cryptocurrency in place of bitcoin. Or even multiple cryptocurrencies, with some (or all) nodes and hubs doubling as currency exhanges. That would let users choose the combination of speed, hashpower, and transaction fees that best suits their needs.
That would introduce security issues. There is no evidence that other cryptocurrencies could stand up to the same level of attacks Bitcoin has successfully withstood. If you are using LN, then you wouldn't benefit from the other altcoin transaction specifications anyway. I don't think users - or anyone really - are capable of judging how secure any given cryptocurrency is relative to transaction cost, speed etc. It's a bit of a problem - ideally you'd like to see the market settle on an optimal security vs. cost ratio, but mostly users won't know security has dropped too low until something very bad happens. And if security drops low enough to really undermine the viability of a crypto, it's quite likely that coin will see a severe drop in valuation, leading to further drops in hashrate as miners go out of business. I guess this would be a partial argument for why centralization of mining is inevitable, as only large miners with sufficient bankroll to survive bad patches will endure in the long run. |
|
|
|
Also, the coins of the hack are still sitting in several wallets, which may indicate that there could be a slight chance that the hacker will return it.
This is an excellent point. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars in altcoins still sitting in various "known" cold wallets - meaning Paul is still being irresponsible with customer funds. If you're saying Cryptsy should be using their remaining funds to immediately pay out their creditors, I'm not sure that's what legal counsel would advise. You can probably look at Mt Gox's implosion for an idea of how a responsible legal professional would likely advise the remaining funds should be handled: A long-winded legal process where all assets are liquidated by a third party, and creditors reimbursed in FIAT, relative to their outstanding claims as determined by some court. (approximately). I am most certainly not qualified to give legal advice myself. But the above appears to be what gox's aftermath indicates is the way things are handled. |
|
|
|
Our network is being run on the back of laptops from the 90s and 35 dollar Raspberry_Pi computers the size of credit cards that don't have enough RAM to hold backlogs of the Mempool (the waiting list of bitcoin)
Our users are connecting to this network over very low bandwidth connections preventing them from running full nodes and participating in securing the network. Raising the block size would raise the bandwidth and hardware requirements for all full node client users and miners.
Is that the case? Can you point to statistics on the hardware capabilities of currently running full nodes? |
|
|
|
|
Anyhow, I'm not talking about what we have now, I'm wondering what level of policy intervention people expect to be required in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
Quantus: This is going off-topic a bit, but the network isn't free by a long shot. Mining costs, currently, roughly 10% of the stored value yearly. This is mainly because of the block subsidy and has been enabled by strong long-term growth in BTC valuation. I don't see that the cost can remain anywhere near that high in the long run, in percentage terms. Either the network manages to remain secure with substantially smaller expense or the POW solution turns out to be too expensive for most use cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Quantus:
What metrics are you basing this on? How do we determine sufficient hashrate or sufficient nodecount?
DannyHamilton:
I'd argue the free market has decided that 1 MB is currently best, as weighed against the threat of a hard fork, which is essentially a political issue. Had Satoshi not switched to a block cap, it seems to me we'd have less political consideration and more latitude for market forces.
Holliday:
That's a fair point, and in practice we are trusting the free market to do just that. There's an element of game theory in play there, similar to why I think miners haven't switched to bigger blocks even though many of them have signalled they support the idea: They have to deal with the human element.
Theymos posted a reply on Reddit recently in which he asked:
"What happened to the dream of a currency untouchable by human failings and corruption?"
And unfortunately, it is beginning to seem to me that this experiment we're all running is starting to show you simply can't achieve that.
|
|
|
|
|
Quantus: So I take it your answer is yes, the Bitcoin economy needs some amount of management?
|
|
|
|
|
They've already been taken. According to Cryptsy anyway, all you have is their word that those coins came from them.
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you take the blog post at face value, it's essentially an admission of fraud. They've been unable to fully pay out their customers for a year and a half now, apparently, and never said a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
