|
the need for a split is self evident.
|
|
|
|
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 ) |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Here is another way to realize how ridiculous @Peter R's (Bitcoin Unlimited's) thesis is. Let's assume every miner had the same hashrate and the same propagation delay, i.e. perfect equality, and so the equilibrium block size was established at rate at which the waste costs of orphans for the entire system was balanced with what the market was willing to pay for transaction fees. But every miner would have an incentive to have a higher share of the hashrate and a faster than average propagation delay, because those who did would win a disproportionate share of the rewards (if you don't understand why then you need to study the original selfish mining paper and the followup on optimal mining strategies). So the natural market outcome is that miners would sign their blocks with a public key representing their reputation to not send invalid blocks. So then miners (pools) would being to trust each other and send only the signed block headers so they can begin mining on the new blocks as fast as possible with only constant factors of propagation (independent of block size). Miners who didn't participate would be less profitable and lose share of hashrate over time. So then you end up with no free market limit on block size, i.e. no fee market. Q.E.D. its reassuring knowing all these crackpot theories of DOOM will be put to the test. |
|
|
|
Sounds to me like you actually did panic I probably did... but also took a calculated risk, I dont think the risk/reward of the situation is reflected at a price of $1000+ right now. I took a bet that there is a higher chance that I can get back in lower than miss out on a rally with the current climate did you buy back already? good luck, mate. No... I'll wait a few days at least you still have a bunch and a ton of cash . |
|
|
|
|
good call OP
are you still thinking 600's?
|
|
|
|
|
we will have both... we have not voted on it yet, but i'm pushing for it have been for a long time.
|
|
|
|
SegWit has already block size increase. But Jihan and Ver and their chinese miners puppets just want to control bitcoin not to increase block size. There's no possible compromise, no more debate we should just ignore and discard them and procede with UASF.
Bitcoin future is at stake and if Bitcoin fails all alts will follow, people wont believe in crypto
miners cant be trusted with producing blocks that the network will accept? please go ahead and do a UA SF S stands for Safe right? or was it Sotf? |
|
|
|
|
I like to smoke, drink, and listen to poker face really loud when i'm working the market.
|
|
|
|
time to go into panic mode again  LOL |
|
|
|
|
1002 bid wall on stamps getting eaten piece at a time
ok under 1000 One more this, this time put some feeling into it.
|
|
|
|
|
you feel that?
that's a train!
get in we're going to the launch pad.
|
|
|
|
This is the part that boggles me a bit lol with Bitfinex.... or maybe I'm just tired lol seems redundant or something If, however, there is a fork, specifically Bitcoin Unlimited, then, as soon as we list Bitcoin Unlimited, we will exchange BCU tokens for Bitcoin Unlimited tokens as well as retiring BCC tokens in favor of Bitcoin Core tokens. BCU isn't bitcoin unlimited coins because such a thing doesn't exist. I guess they are going to create completely separate markets once it actually forks, to make it clear, that these current markets are trading "hypothetical coins" BTC is dead. Hello BCC and BCU! what a shame... |
|
|
|
One thing Woo (and idiot Ver) may not have accounted for is by centralising so much power around themselves they are now major targets for any variant of the $5 wrench attack motivated by an incentive for control over a $20 billion monetary security system (or its demise) .... not smart guys by any stretch of the imagination. They might want to start spending that "$100 millions" they budgeted on attacking core (100's of decentralised developers) on some high class personal security.
You would think Ver knows enough of the cypherpunk history to know what happened to e-Gold, Liberty Reserve, e-Bullion, etc central actors. If you want to go centralised with your digital money expect to become the prime target for some major league criminals.
Except such an attack would have occurred years ago on people like Gavinator, Wlad, or Gmaxwell already... if anyone person had that kind of control, we wouldn't care about bitcoin. |
|
|
|
we'll be back over 1000$ in no time.
Yep! 1k incoming,,,, maybe people are giving up the debate or just willing to get back to normal and let the chips fall where they may with BU... who knows lol Nah, I'd assume we are the standard rolling wave down still, each time lower. that was yesterday's thing |
|
|
|
|
we'll be back over 1000$ in no time.
|
|
|
|
March 18, 2017 Today, Bitfinex proudly introduces trading on Chain Split Tokens (CST). The first such product of its kind, CSTs will allow Bitfinex customers to speculate on future fork events of the Bitcoin blockchain, specifically, the potential fork between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Unlimited. We are designating these CSTs as BCC (Bitcoin Core) and BCU (Bitcoin Unlimited).
CSTs will trade as BTC and USD pairs, initially without margin, and as will any other product with list, we will reevaluate that decision if there is sufficient liquidity.
Users will be able to create CSTs by “splitting” a bitcoin through the Token Manager (located in the Order Type drop down menu of the sidebar order ticket). Once split, the BTC will be removed from your account for each BCC and BCU added. Through the same Token Manager, you will be able to reverse this process at anytime, trading in equal numbers of BCC and BCU to extract BTC.
If no fork occurs by December 31, 2017, then BCU will expire worthless and BTC will be given in exchange for each BCC holder. If, however, there is a fork, specifically Bitcoin Unlimited, then, as soon as we list Bitcoin Unlimited, we will exchange BCU tokens for Bitcoin Unlimited tokens as well as retiring BCC tokens in favor of Bitcoin Core tokens. More detailed information can be found in the Chains Split Token Terms and Conditions.
We are planning a few additional enhancements including a realtime display of total CSTs as well as segregated cold storage for the bitcoins that have been split, which we will periodically settle to and from our hot wallet. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
