Yup. I was wrong. SegWit has cut a deal with BU. We are going to fork. RIP.
everyone hates Segwit2mb yet there's what, 30% signaling for it? or am i mistaken? I assumed what york meant when he said SegWit has cut a deal with BU was the Segwit SF + 2MB HF (Segwit2MB) being proposed. this will produce a Effective 8MB block weight. everyone hates it. 20MB everyone hates it. 8MB everyone hates it. BIP101 everyone hates it. 2MB HF everyone hates it. Segwit everyone hates it. BU everyone hates it. UASF everyone hates it. Segwit2MB everyone hates it. Why has no one suggested lowering the block size?? Maybe that one will get unanimous support. Luke did sugest that guess what... EVERYONE HATES IT!  |
|
|
|
as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.
best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money) pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper? the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101 making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total. even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market. 1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX 50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free. both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin. we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0. You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit. yes i read it. I reference it in my essay: https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus. I'm slightly confused on your position because it sounds like you agree with Peter that EC can solve the issues...on the other hand, Peter is advocating that we shouldnt and neednt have a limit that is below market demand, while you are saying blockszie cannot outpace adoption. I'm not sure if there's an actual disagreement or you're just describing a different property of the natural fee market. I agree that there is a natural cost to miners for including TXs in blocks. But i do not think this will be the limiting factor in determining Blocksize. Peter says we dont need a block size limit at all because miners won't produce blocks that have a bad risk/reward chance-to-orphen/fees. I'm saying Peter's theory determines an upper limit, but blocksize won't get close to this limit at all because miners will set a limit which will create fee pressure. This will be like 2MB with today level of adoption and maybe 2.2MB 6 months from now. ( obviously no where near peters limit) miners are in the business of selling blockspace they can: A) offer lots and lots of blockspace for cheap ( near peters cost per byte ) or B) offer a very limit amount of blockspace at a high price which will yield the more revenue? well... this is a classic economic problem with a straightforward way of determining how to price your good ( or in this case how to size your blocks )  this optimal amount of block space the miners should be offering, depends on fee paying TX demand, which isn't limitless, and very much tied to adoption. miners are incentivized to set an Excivies Blocksize (EB) which doesn't go over this optimal block size limit. miners won't create massive blocks unless there is Massive TX demand. TX demand will take YEARS to get anywhere near needing 16MB blocks. |
|
|
|
Yup. I was wrong. SegWit has cut a deal with BU. We are going to fork. RIP.
everyone hates Segwit2mb yet there's what, 30% signaling for it? or am i mistaken? I assumed what york meant when he said SegWit has cut a deal with BU was the Segwit SF + 2MB HF (Segwit2MB) being proposed. this will produce a Effective 8MB block weight. everyone hates it. 20MB everyone hates it. 8MB everyone hates it. BIP101 everyone hates it. 2MB HF everyone hates it. Segwit everyone hates it. BU everyone hates it. UASF everyone hates it. Segwit2MB everyone hates it. |
|
|
|
as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.
best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money) pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper? the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101 making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total. even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market. 1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX 50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free. both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin. we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0. You make a lot of sense but i'm not sure we need a blocksize limit to do this. I'm curious if you've read Peter Rizun's whitepaper about the fee market sans blocksize limit. yes i read it. I reference it in my essay: https://medium.com/@adamstgbit_25789/bitcoin-unlimited-to-bring-stability-to-bitcoins-fee-market-6b5a4f882fc0Conclusion,
technological limitations create costs to miners for including TX’s in blocks, economical incentives create a balanced fee market based on these costs and TX demand. As subsidy halves again, and again maximizing fee revenue becomes the name of the game for miners, and as competition for collecting these fees grow, so does the NEED to keep a well balanced fee market which yields optimal fees / block. Blocksize cannot outpace TX demand, blocksize cannot outpace bitcoin adoption, node decentralization is in no way threatened by Bitcoin Unlimited’s Emergent Consensus. |
|
|
|
Yup. I was wrong. SegWit has cut a deal with BU. We are going to fork. RIP.
everyone hates Segwit2mb |
|
|
|
|
I hate it, this crazy 4MB block weight doubled to 8MB effective blocksize just doubles the shittness of segwit IMO. I want malleability fix + EC HF, thats it, thats all.
|
|
|
|
|
SegWit2MB takes the Bitcoin protocol as it stands, but it adds a 2MB block size hard-fork that activates only if Segwit activates.
post your thoughts below and your votes above.
|
|
|
|
as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.
best way to do that is probably increase the user base, because increasing fees per transaction is greatly limited due to competition. Iow, why would I (or anyone interested in saving money) pay more with Bitcoin when another method is cheaper? the best way to do it is using some basic economics 101 making blocks that have a size which creates some fee pressure, will net alot more fees in total. even not considering altcoin competition its clear that a any static blocksize limit will fail to produce a healthy fee market. 1MB = fees pressure so high that poeple simply cant TX 50MB = fees pressure so low that everyone TX can get in the block for free. both do nothing to maximizes fees/block, and so both lead to less security for bitcoin. we NEED a dynamic blocksize limit which will yield the most optimal pressure fees, or bitcoin will be very insecure in the future, and therefore useless and therefore worth 0. |
|
|
|
We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.
i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after. my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO I think the problem with most miners is that they don't understand with the future holds with all these changes coming to the space, fear of unknown The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them. Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling. if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin... if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue. |
|
|
|
the practical application of the idea you link is Extension Blocks. |
|
|
|
or get in the alt coin car! your choice. |
|
|
|
We need segwit to do extension blocks. They've been a part of segwit for a long time.
i think minners might seriously reconsider segwit, if they could get extension blocks shortly after. my god, imagine 4MB effective coreblocksize + extension blocks + LN bitcoin is going to scale up Up UP!!!!!!!! like a MOFO |
|
|
|
it really odd that the ETF denial didnt kill bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
|
BU was targeted by some creative hackers who had ( and continues to have ) access to there code base.
its really no surprise it " shat all over "...
I like BU, I love the concept, I think as price rises and adoption grows, minning will become even more competitive! and we'll get even more decentralization where it counts.
And i think its very important that Core make some alterations to stay compatible with slightly bigger blocks.
I think without there pressure blocks Might get >4MB sooner than we'd expect, if core simply changed it 4MB block weight to 4MB blocksize they would be compatible, and i would very much like to move forward TOGETHER.
I am very sad angry seeing how this whole "debate" has deteriorated over the years.
|
|
|
|
alexjones bought steem it |
|
|
|
feels like chinese are pushing this time.
Maybe, but it's only $1004 at OKCoin. hmmm looks like i'm totally off base.  |
|
|
|
Am I the only one here interested in Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion?
We've just hit $1120 at Bitcoinaverage, $1119 at Stamp.
Go Bitcoin go.
its just popped its head over 1141 at bitfinex. feels like chinese are pushing this time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
