|
2nd breakout wave incoming ... let's see if they can keep the bearstomp lid on this wild shit.
|
|
|
|
good point ... these guys have been net sellers to fund there fiat operations for quite some time ... the Gav walked away with a good portion of the pie and some lawyers and lobbyists did well also ... how much did they begin with 30k btc? |
|
|
|
Frankly, I admire Stolfi for never losing his cool when subjected to inappropriate ridicule and disrespect. Could we maybe just try to act like grownups?
To be fair, Stolfi is mostly trolling. Although I support larger blocks myself, I do suspect Stolfi is trolling in this regard as well. I did have a hope that the inner nerd in him lit a fire a while ago, but alas. He is obviously not stupid, so the way he manages to misrepresent just about everything he's referring to should be a red light for most. PS. Oh, and I made him lose his cool once. It's not easy but it can be done. I seem to remember not long ago he wished we all die in a fire.  bitcoins don't burn ... another great property |
|
|
|
Oh god. Please don't even follow that link and give this guy views. It's that Rawdogletard guy. Nothing of value there. he is genius!  in is own dumber-than-dirt way this guy is funny ... and a video from him is also agreat indicator that bitcoin is bubbling up into the dumber-than-dirt mainstream radar again .... Bullish! |
|
|
|
... so now it is a leading indicator? |
|
|
|
|
the bearstomp needs to be defeated here and now ...
Bitcoin is not for you, there are no capacity problems ... nothing you can do now.
|
|
|
|
|
... and just for the record Luke-Jr is slightly wrong on seg-witness not helping bandwidth requirements because it will, in a network-wide sense.
Newly-synching full-node clients will be downloading a reduced size blockchain (from date seg-witness begins) so placing less total bandwidth load (data caps) on network and Lite clients will use up less aggregate bandwidth, placing less load on full-nodes also.
|
|
|
|
he's talking about raising the total data rate (seg. witness + tx data) gradually, not the max_block_size limit ...
Sigh, you're right, he's afraid about even getting these "free" gains already... I knew that didn't sound like luke. An hour later he gave us a kernel of moral wisdom on slavery. To Christians: why is slavery not permitted today? by some_random_guy_5345 in DebateReligion
[–]luke-jr 1 point an hour ago
Slavery is an imperfection. We can and should strive to get rid of imperfections. However, since slavery is not inherently immoral itself, when it is practised, it must be done morally and slaves treated as people, hence the need for guidelines. ... the guy is incorrigible but if he keeps solving bitcoins problems with flashes of weird brilliance from the fringey far-side, then all power to him. Great strength comes from diversity of thinking. |
|
|
|
|
still as clueless as ever ...
|
|
|
|
not sure if you read some of my previous posts up page ... there is way more than a plan in place already
imho that seg-witness stuff looks like a viable solution for the foreseeable future (4-6yrs) plus some other benefits to boot, better than a risky can kick, it is a low risk restructuring that buys time and makes lite clients a real thing again (not just security theatre like SPV bitcoinJ)
tl;dr short-term scaling is solved ... we can worry about the long term when it arrives because we will know better what it looks like then (particularly the fees market with less reward transition conundrum)
tl;do read I'll let luke-jr supply a little cold water for your 4-6 year solution euphoria: [–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 6 points 2 hours ago
Hmm, problem here is that CPU usage is not the primary bottleneck for block sizes: bandwidth is. And unfortunately, SW doesn't help in the bandwidth area at all. So while I do think we should take this opportunity to get the block size changes softforked in instead of hardforked (buying us a bit more time before a hardfork is required?), it does still need to be gradual and not just 4x at once.
My suggestion is to go based on either BIP 103 or John Sacco's double-the-limit-every-subsidy-halving idea. euphoria huh? Luke-Jr is always conservative on bandwidth because lives in rural Florida on an apparently sub-par connection. If we scale TX rate 4x without a hard-fork then current bandwidth is already capable of handling that ... not sure where your cold water thinking is here, a damp squib? The key is without risky hard-fork for now ... in the meantime technology hardware, software and network data knowledge all improve while transition to fees driven PoW security gets closer (halving to 6.25btc reward) ... and lite nodes now have a viable future instead of client-server (risky offchain). It's all very encouraging, an alternative consensual path for foreseeble future to bludgeoning through an unpopular blocksize hardfork with exponential scaling into an unknowable outcome. The world might look very different in 2 years, let alone 5 or 20. I thought the quote was appropriate because even luke-"dialup"-jr is for conservative max increases (sooner than 2019 or 2021), and he understands the actual gains provided by SegWitness better than me and most. he's talking about raising the total data rate (seg. witness + tx data) gradually, not the max_block_size limit ... |
|
|
|
tl;do read I'll let luke-jr supply a little cold water for your 4-6 year solution euphoria: [–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 6 points 2 hours ago
Hmm, problem here is that CPU usage is not the primary bottleneck for block sizes: bandwidth is. And unfortunately, SW doesn't help in the bandwidth area at all. So while I do think we should take this opportunity to get the block size changes softforked in instead of hardforked (buying us a bit more time before a hardfork is required?), it does still need to be gradual and not just 4x at once.
My suggestion is to go based on either BIP 103 or John Sacco's double-the-limit-every-subsidy-halving idea. wut? no magic? Small-block scaling is starting to remind me of cold fusion. god you bears are desperate, at least try and use material you have an inkling of ... hint: there are 16 inklings in a clue. |
|
|
|
not sure if you read some of my previous posts up page ... there is way more than a plan in place already
imho that seg-witness stuff looks like a viable solution for the foreseeable future (4-6yrs) plus some other benefits to boot, better than a risky can kick, it is a low risk restructuring that buys time and makes lite clients a real thing again (not just security theatre like SPV bitcoinJ)
tl;dr short-term scaling is solved ... we can worry about the long term when it arrives because we will know better what it looks like then (particularly the fees market with less reward transition conundrum)
tl;do read I'll let luke-jr supply a little cold water for your 4-6 year solution euphoria: [–]luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert 6 points 2 hours ago
Hmm, problem here is that CPU usage is not the primary bottleneck for block sizes: bandwidth is. And unfortunately, SW doesn't help in the bandwidth area at all. So while I do think we should take this opportunity to get the block size changes softforked in instead of hardforked (buying us a bit more time before a hardfork is required?), it does still need to be gradual and not just 4x at once.
My suggestion is to go based on either BIP 103 or John Sacco's double-the-limit-every-subsidy-halving idea. euphoria huh? Luke-Jr is always conservative on bandwidth because lives in rural Florida on an apparently sub-par connection. If we scale TX rate 4x without a hard-fork then current bandwidth is already capable of handling that ... not sure where your cold water thinking is here, a damp squib? The key is without risky hard-fork for now ... in the meantime technology hardware, software and network data knowledge all improve while transition to fees driven PoW security gets closer (halving to 6.25btc reward) ... and lite nodes now have a viable future instead of client-server (risky offchain). It's all very encouraging, an alternative consensual path for foreseeble future to bludgeoning through an unpopular blocksize hardfork with exponential scaling into an unknowable outcome. The world might look very different in 2 years, let alone 5 or 20. |
|
|
|
maybe we will see dinosaurs, or sheep, mutton dressed up as lamb ... who knows what in the run to six hundy?
well ....if there is a plan of a plan that comes out of the Hong Kong btc scaling dev conference....well we will go over 400 usd btc quick imho.. http://www.coindesk.com/chinas-miners-heat-up-blocksize-debate-at-scaling-bitcoin-hong-kong/if nothing comes of it ...even something as lame as the above a plan for a plan....some kinda process hell it will probably drop back to mid 200's again I mean the rest of KNOW we don't know wtf is going on with crypto and btc......we have 'guideline' that we think is gonna happen but if the core devs can't figure it out among themselves either well ..'shudder' just scared myself  just saying..they can lie to me/ make stuff up/ I don't care ...I don't code.....just make it frigging 'plausible' that there is a plan for a plan us bitcoin types are used to little info and much hope ...so hell even that much would work ...to calm the 'kiddies" not sure if you read some of my previous posts up page ... there is way more than a plan in place already imho that seg-witness stuff looks like a viable solution for the foreseeable future (4-6yrs) plus some other benefits to boot, better than a risky can kick, it is a low risk restructuring that buys time and makes lite clients a real thing again (not just security theatre like SPV bitcoinJ) tl;dr short-term scaling is solved ... we can worry about the long term when it arrives because we will know better what it looks like then (particularly the fees market with less reward transition conundrum) |
|
|
|
|
maybe we will see dinosaurs, or sheep, mutton dressed up as lamb ... who knows what in the run to six hundy?
|
|
|
|
wait, we can't changetip that for folks from the civilised world? (would-be sophisticates, albeit those who spout racist perjoratives against the 'goyim') |
|
|
|
Do you also come up to strangers in the street and press money into their hands?
I do it all the time, and they usually thank me  Just found it weird she reacted with such rage. Maybe folks here are correct and she is the anti-bitcoin spammer. ... looks likely, she has risen to the troll bait like a bitch on heat ... if lambie was anyone else it would have been just more fluffy pony show |
|
|
|
Why 4x? Well, 0.12 just made transaction validation like 7x faster I believe with libsecp256k1. The impact on relay, there are technologies that have been discussed earlier like IBLT and weak blocks. So segwit fixes malleability ,allows more Script upgrades, allows fraud proofs, allows pruning blocks for historical data, improves bandwidth usage for light nodes and historical sync, and it's P2SH compatible for old senders so that non-upgraders can still send funds. This gives us time for IBLT and weak blocks to develop, so that we can see whether the relay and propagation stuff can have time to work. http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/I think even the worst of the big-blocker-or-bust have to stfu and think before looking very stoopid now. meritocracy means you don't get a say unless you are the best ... sit down at the back of the bus until you get a clue. |
|
|
|
1st world problems seem to be a particular affliction of self-obsessed female financial reporters no doubt ... what next, the cost of make-up, hand-bags or shoes? |
|
|
|
Well played! So much gold in the original post, which foretells the coming of myriad altcoins, shapeshift, and atomic cross-chain transfers. Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.
Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately. Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other. BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.
The networks need to have separate fates. BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Fears about securely buying domains with Bitcoins are a red herring. It's easy to trade Bitcoins for other non-repudiable commodities.
If you're still worried about it, it's cryptographically possible to make a risk free trade. The two parties would set up transactions on both sides such that when they both sign the transactions, the second signer's signature triggers the release of both. The second signer can't release one without releasing the other.
BitDNS, for anybody who hasn't been following, was implemented as Namecoin. It is ideally suited to decentrally store/anchor data of all types, not just DNS, ID and TLS cert . types. Everyone climbing on to the "blockchain' bandwagon has missed that storage of data can ideally already be done in Namecoin, with security of hashpower a good percentage of Bitcoin's through merge-mining. If these gold-rushers had just spent a fraction of their bloated VC budgets on supporting Namecoin development then they have a ready made blockchain data storage ... just have to wait for them (free market) to catch up conceptually, but alas sometimes one wonders if they ever get tired of going off on tangents. Fees aligning with costs is the key. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
