Adam, you need to tell these fools if they're going to fork to skip BU entirely and do just a plain 4MB fork with 8MB possibly to be activated at a future date like a few years from now. BU isn't a good model and we've already been over this stuff before with Monero.
the bitcoin model isn't 1 dev team 1 set of rules to rule them all. BU is the bitcoin model the sooner poeple comes to grips with that the better. if you think this is the last "hostile take over" your nuts |
|
|
|
we have devs, miners, exchanges, and wallets, not sure about merchant processing, altho when asked about altcoins bitpay use to say " we will always use the coin backed by the most hashing power period the end. " |
|
|
|
Why is the BTC-e price higher? It used to be the other way around. Less manipulation over there? Even China is above Stamp and Finex.
ya i noticed that too, its why i'm so confident that price will keep rising. |
|
|
|
download the lastest BU client and sync DAT node  |
|
|
|
|
do not listen to r0ach he forked off to the silver chain weeks ago
|
|
|
|
As soon as they pass 51% they can halt the (BTC) bitcoin network , they can stop confirming blocks , cant they ? That should be a real problem. So they will force community to accept their fork if no consensus reached.  no. |
|
|
|
|
72 370.84083865 BTC agree that:
Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible
|
|
|
|
Here's a new thought. If BU forks, then only segwit stays at ~100% hashpower and we get segwit with no more fight!!!!
Fork BU, I dare you to fork right now!!!!
decentralized amongst two miners  |
|
|
|
Storage isn't the real concern. It's RAM (in the short term) and bandwidth (in the slightly longer run).
RAM is cheap and getting cheaper. Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper. At larger blocks (hence more tps) and larger databases, SSDs will be the only way to go. You can trade SSD for RAM all you want, but the truth is that expensive resources will be needed that are not easily available. Hence, decentralization goes down the drain.
For Bitcoin to be bitcoin, we need average JOE to be able to run a full client easily.
The expectation that the future health of the network depends upon people who will not spend 0.2 BTC on their machines is ludicrous. No doubt those are becoming cheap and limits will have to be raised at some point. But this is not it. At 1-2 $ per transaction, confirmation time is 10-20 minutes. The rest are people who won't pay either because they are not in such a hurry, or because they are just spammers. No need to fill up our disks with that. look if a spammer is willing to pay 50cents pre TX and help support the network. i'm OK with that. but we all know this isn't spam... |
|
|
|
avoiding a split is paramount!
lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition
 imagine the press we'd get. |
|
|
|
Oh by the way, I'd like to add. BU hashrate is now at 43%. 8 mb hashrate is at 8%. This means the big blocker side now effectively has 51% hashrate. They won't fork until it's >75%, but it's coming  My prediction, the price will drop dramatically during the fork and all the FUD and chaos and negative news stories. This will be a good buying opportunity. But after the smoke clears, and BU / big blocks retain dominance, marketshare will flow back into Bitcoin from the shitcoins like a tidal wave and we'll see new all time highs with bitcoin. Finally, 10K+ per coin will become possible. It's gonna happen. It's not. For BU to reach 75%, Segwit must stay at 25% and 8MB must vanish! 2MB classic node are compatible with BU so long as miners generate blocks <2MB we do not need them to switch over. we will have different implementations converge on one blockchain meanwhile core will have nuked themselfs.... |
|
|
|
Oh by the way, I'd like to add. BU hashrate is now at 43%. 8 mb hashrate is at 8%. This means the big blocker side now effectively has 51% hashrate. They won't fork until it's >75%, but it's coming My prediction, the price will drop dramatically during the fork and all the FUD and chaos and negative news stories. This will be a good buying opportunity. But after the smoke clears, and BU / big blocks retain dominance, marketshare will flow back into Bitcoin from the shitcoins like a tidal wave and we'll see new all time highs with bitcoin. Finally, 10K+ per coin will become possible. It's gonna happen. a <25% fork is not viable. its winner takes all... when the dust settles, we'll have 1.2MB blocks ( with a mem pool that Sometimes gets emptied ), segwitHF on its way, Core will have rage quit, and price will correct to 3K |
|
|
|
avoiding a split is paramount!
lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition
How about we let them code "Hello World" and see who does it without making their computer crash? LMAO. assert(!"Hello World"); OPS we did again! |
|
|
|
|
avoiding a split is paramount!
lets just get the Best BU dev Vs the Best Core dev in Dance Dance revolution competition
|
|
|
|
What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable? Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too? They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them? Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time?
How about small signature campaign payments? Are they spam? What about all the gamblers betting small amounts? Are they spam? What about RAREPEPE? If you don't know, the amazing new counterparty implementation trading rare/scarce assets on the bitcoin blockchain? Is that spam? Cost for it has gotten outrageous and damn near stopped it dead.. You are pretty much saying that small people should not be using Bitcoin and use some altcoin instead? Altcoins can't escape current technology either. ya but they can escape your reasoning that leads you to self imposed unnecessary limits. |
|
|
|
What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?
Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization. would you agree that if bitcoin doubles its user base this will help decentralization? would you agree that if a signficant % of its userbase start using the second layer this will incentivize them to run first layer nodes and second layer nodes. |
|
|
|
what block size limit is needed to support Visa-level TPS (2000/s)
~1GB |
|
|
|
BS, if everyone wanted to use BTC they simply could not because bitcoin is incapable of processing all of their transactions no matter what they pay in fees..
2mb blocks right now would buy time until better solutions become available, wither that be LN or something yet unheard of.. Right now it's stagnant and people that want to use bitcoin cannot because it just will not process that many transactions..
Sure they can wait forever for confirms while the line cutters jump infront of them, but that is not the way BTC was intended to be..
Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. Expecting to include "everyone's" transaction in a decentralized ledger where full nodes have to keep a history of every transaction since the genesis block is simply ridiculous. It would destroy the very properties that gives Bitcoin it's value. agreed! anyway, 1.2MB limit for now and when fee presuure comes back to 1$ 1.3MB blocks, sounds good? Kick the can down the road? No, it sounds terrible. How about layers which can be removed should the need arise. why not both. i dont think its kicking the can, its more like preparing for the future. unless you believe no one will ever be able to handle more then 1MB why do both when only one of the solutions is helpful, agreed to, vetted and tested. LN isnt even out of alpha stage.... so i need to assume you mean increasing block size, like miners did from 256KB to 1MB slowly over time ( yes miners had there own Max generation size before ) Your response makes no sense. of course I am referring to the implementation of seg wit rather than a blocksize limit increase... At this time, both are not necessary, so no need to consider doing both (as a kind of compromise) as you seem to be asserting. if segwit didnt do this weird blocksize incress thing, you wouldn't be so confused. yes we need both. ultimately any blockchain that does not do both WILL FAIL LN requires bigger blocks to function as a TX layer for a sizeable amount of TX's. |
|
|
|
|
the market needs to price in the "buy 1 get one free" forking effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
