...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.
Yes. This is a very valid point. Please read the BIP at least once. I have, and I see your point. The veto (actually 10%) only applies from the change from a 1 MB hard fork to a 1 MB soft fork and not the the voting mechanism for changing the soft fork limit. There does remain a second hard fork at 32 MB presumably subject to a 10% veto. |
|
|
|
|
What are the two most pressing problems facing Bitcoin today?
1) The blocksize debate that is currently tearing the community apart
2) The threat to fungibility by the tracing of Bitcoins on the blockchain
Which is the most liquid POW coin that solves both of these problems?
1) Monero.
|
|
|
|
|
Litecoin has a similar max blocksize problem as Bitcoin. It also cannot scale without a hard fork.
|
|
|
|
...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.
Yes. This is a very valid point. |
|
|
|
I guess you haven't been following the blocksize debate very closely.
Let me summarize for you:
Core developers refused to raise the blocksize because of their involvement with
a private company called Blockstream who took $21M in venture capital and
wants to build an alternate payment network on top of an artificially limted 1mb bitcoin.
Meanwhile the rest of the bitcoin world is calling for bigger blocks. Gavin questionably
decided to team up with Mike Hearn, who while brilliant, has said some dumbass
authoritarian things in the past so no one trusts him. Unfortunately, they are only ones who released
the a client supports big blocks (called XT) that everyone hates
(but mostly just because they don't trust Hearn).
However, pools are signing blocks with support for one of the BIPs
and probably we'll have bigger blocks soon, with or without XT.
True story.
I normally don't follow dev politics, thanks for the wrap up. I for one am all for keeping blocks limited at 1 mb. If this is simply impractical, raise to 2 mb. If you raise much more, the blockchain will be more unwieldy than it already is, and you are limiting the usability of bitcoin to people with expensive PCs. You are cutting out a global audience by raising the technological requirements one must have to operate a client. I've said it before, feel free to disagree: the whole point behind bitcoin was to disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic Forces That be, and put power back in the hands of the average person. The average person, as it turns out, is quite poor, even moreso than just 7 years ago. I've watched first-hand the movement away from this idealism and the focus shift to greed. Now BTC is regarded as "a toy of the 1%." While transaction fees may decrease with XT (I personally doubt it), having the bandwidth, time and hard drive space to download a 100+ GB blockchain is an unachievable luxury for many. I don't care what your storage is on your computer. What do you think the average hard drive size is globally? Please, be honest and realistic in your guess. So, what's it all about? The opportunity for some spoiled nerds to make even more money or the opportunity to change global finance for the better on a worldwide level? The problem with your argument is that there are way to many "average people" in the world for even an infinitesimal fraction of them to be able to use Bitcoin with the kind of blocksize limits you are supporting. What exactly is the point of being able to download the blockchain if one cannot use Bitcoin? As for "hard drives" here is an example from 1959. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg Capacity about 4 GB and only the most powerful and wealthy superpower of the day could afford it. Edit: In any case if Bitcoin in what ever form does not do what is really needed to "disempower Wall Street, the government and other capitalistic forces" somebody else will. |
|
|
|
shadowcash will be the new bitcoin
Oh? I thought it was going to be one of the other dozens of cryptos that are supposedly slated to overtake BTC.  Anyway, to the XT/alt question..... I fully support BIP 100 and would love to see a real alternative to XT that addresses the block size issue at the forefront. I prefer a conservative approach that takes into account real transaction volume.....not the transaction volume that XT proponents want to see in the future (whether or not reality measures up). BIP 100, http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf, has merit in that it does not propose a 8GB hard limit as XT, but still why two hard forks one at 1 MB and one at 32 MB? The key here is to take care of the long term, and the short term will take care of it self. |
|
|
|
Even if it crashes to 100 I wouldn't sell.
The general consensus of the newcomers around here is that they are greedy and ignorant, looking to make a quick buck. I believe in what BTC stands for, and I believe it will ultimately succeed.
... I also believe in what Bitcoin stands for. The question becomes can Bitcoin deliver what it stands for? |
|
|
|
I don't think bitcoin would be right for them,USD is a much better choice
Bitcoin would not work unless the blocksize limit was increased. |
|
|
|
If this mess continues there is the possibility that both "Core" and "XT" could become alt-coins.
Its not going to continue. Price of BTC is already back up to $222. I highly doubt - though I am no financial advisor - that it will break below $200. Too many people buying in at $200 up to $225. If both Core and XT became altcoins, what would be the main coin? LTC? If the blocksize debate is resolved and Bitcoin is allowed to scale then confidence will be restored and Bitcoin will likely exceed its previous all time high and continue as the dominant coin. The longer this fight continues the more confidence is eroded and the probalilty of both "Core" and "XT" becoming alt-coins increases. Money is after all fundamentally about confidence. As for which alt would replace Bitcoin in such a scenario. There are way more opinions on the subject than there are alt-coins. My take is that if the problem in Bitcoin is caused by a fixed blocksize limit baked into the protocol, it would make sense to look at those alt-coins that do not have this problem. |
|
|
|
|
If this mess continues there is the possibility that both "Core" and "XT" could become alt-coins.
|
|
|
|
|
Not everyone who is selling bought Bitcoin at say 500 USD, after Apple gave the iSheep permission to buy Bitcoin, in 2014 and are selling in panic now. Some of the iSheep are selling and if that were the only issue then a simple "strong hand" holding strategy will work.
The trouble with the "strong hand" holding strategy in this market is that the long term fundamentals of Bitcoin are very much in doubt. The reality is that Bitcoin needs to fork and allow for bigger blocks, otherwise it is doomed to stagnation and faliure. This has led some of us who were buying Bitcoin in the 2 USD to 10 USD range back in 2011 - 2012 to get out of Bitcoin. I have replaced my Bitcoin holdings with a combination of CAD (Canadian Dollars) and XMR (Monero) that by any objective measure has a higher beta or risk factor than XBT (Bitcoin). So this not about fear in a crypto bear market, it is about repositioning a portfolio during a crypto bear market from one with poor long term fundamentals to one with good long term fundamentals.
If enough of the "old money" in Bitcoin makes a move from Bitcoin to a combination of fiat and one or more alt-coins watch out.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to get the too many open files error every 2-4 days running the tagged 0.8.8.6 release on 64bit GNU/Linux. v0.8.8.7-107eeaf on the other hand has been really stable for me.
|
|
|
|
Dash, Maidsafe, and Ethereum all trade on Poloniex https://poloniex.com/. I have dealt with Poloniex for over a year trading Monero and never had any problems. |
|
|
|
|
I am firmly on the large block side, since all the tracking, TOR blocking aspects of Bitcoin XT are not part of the hard fork. So another wallet can come and strip all these objectionable aspects of Bitcoin XT without the need for any further hard fork. What this does however is complicate the blocksize debate even more since there are legitimate concerns with all of these "add ons" to Bitcoin XT. One thing is becoming clear here no matter which side Core or XT "wins" Monero stands to gain since it addresses the concerns of both sides of the debate.
My biggest concern with Bitcoin XT remains the built in 8GB blocksize limit.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin DOWN DOWN DOWN, it's going DOWN DOWN DOWN...
sell?  This bear looks very healthy to me. |
|
|
|
...
I agree, but I was making the case why you might not view holding even premium alts as a full substitute for holding BTC. If all crypto fails then it doesn't matter which you hold.
I agree. Premium alts are not full substitute for holding BTC. A significant fiat component is a must here. The more interesting question is how will various alts behave in both the bear and bull scenarios. In both overall crypto bear and bull markets there will be significant differences. In this particular case since the cause of this crypto bear market is the fixed blocksize limit in Bitcoin. My take is that how a particular alt deals with this issue will, over the long term have a very significant impact on that alt's performance in both the bear and even the bull case. |
|
|
|
My bots warmly welcome fud storms and volatile markets. I am in no way afraid of btc dropping to $87 as im fully confident that would be a temporary price point and parhaps a good place to once and for all shake some of these gorrilla-bears out of the market. Some see DOOM, i see opportunity. I feel for anyone staring at their balances dropping, but I personally am quite interested in playing in a volatile scare-fest.
In any case If I am wrong and Bitcoin goes to the moon, then all I need is for Monero to appreciate 5x in terms of Bitcoin to say 0.01 to 0.012 for my hedge to work. Given the past performance of most alt-coins during a Bitcoin boom this is actually conservative. In effect I have allocated a small portion of my Monero holdings as a hedge against a fall of the value of the Canadian Dollar in terms of Bitcoin. I also expect established alts like XMR to go up 5-10x against BTC as BTC goes up 5-10x against the USD. Possibly 100x gains. So now I think to myself: why even bother with holding BTC? A basket of established alts (e.g. XMR+PPC+NMC+ETH, etc.) collectively have as good a chance of surviving as bitcoin does. Maybe a better chance. And more upside. Yes but for the hedge to work a substantial fiat postion say 75% - 80% is needed. The point is that alts have a much higher beta than Bitcoin, so in most cases they will drop also in terms of Bitcoin. As for the alts above I say that PPC and NMC are ok choices as for ETH my take is no. XMR is very attactive here since it does not have the blocksize problem that got Bitcoin into this mess in the first place. Most other POW, and even some POS alts have a similar blocksize problem. Edit: The fiat part of the position is the bear case. My take is that If one holds an alt out side of the hedge it must not have the blocksize problem. |
|
|
|
My bots warmly welcome fud storms and volatile markets. I am in no way afraid of btc dropping to $87 as im fully confident that would be a temporary price point and parhaps a good place to once and for all shake some of these gorrilla-bears out of the market. Some see DOOM, i see opportunity. I feel for anyone staring at their balances dropping, but I personally am quite interested in playing in a volatile scare-fest.
For Monero I am not concerned at all, since the mid to long term fundamentals are very solid. For Bitcoin I am not that sure anymore. This whole blocksize debate can cause a lot of damage. In any case If I am wrong and Bitcoin goes to the moon, then all I need is for Monero to appreciate 5x in terms of Bitcoin to say 0.01 to 0.012 for my hedge to work. Given the past performance of most alt-coins during a Bitcoin boom this is actually conservative. In effect I have allocated a small portion of my Monero holdings as a hedge against a fall of the value of the Canadian Dollar in terms of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...
It can't be assumed that the technology will never change though. That's not as big a deal for transaction fees where as I explained earlier it is fundamentally a guideline, so the worst case is you end up with a poor guideline but it doesn't fail altogether. It could be a bigger problem if using this method for something else.
Actually that is not the assumption here. The assumption is that if the price of technology falls by say 1000x then the spammer would need 1000x as much spam to do the same damage. Edit: We are talking about a per KB fee here after all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
