price is dropping?
better login and debate this
once and for all |
|
|
|
In the hopes we can start an actual dialog and quit throwing insults at each other: C'mon! Stop talking BS and fork it! you first |
|
|
|
Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................
One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.
This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions. So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU. Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever? I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market. we welcome fee paying spam.  if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards! And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time. Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker. It is this orphan risk that creates the cost. Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose! And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what? ya man wast your money Huh? I'm getting paid block rewards. I lose out on BU fees, but so what? I'm attacking BU's chain and getting paid to do it! How much are the fees going to be anyway when blocks are big enough to include all these transactions? Isn't that the selling point? Fees are too high, we need bigger blocks? if you aren't including fees you're gonna be minning at a loss. pretty soon, all minning will be based on fee revenue. and my node will ignore your 0fee paying TX you attempt to broadcast. |
|
|
|
Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam...................
One could add 100GB to the BU blockchain, just by spending 1 BU coin.
This is not a reasonable game theory interpretation of what will happen. They will set the block size to yield the highest total fees, which would require the exclusion of very low fee transactions. So, we've had tons of "spam" on the network, I assume that "spam" will continue post BU (should that happen). I also imagine lots of new "spam" as an attack on BU. Miners craft blocks to get the highest total fees, means they are accepting blocks of that size? What happens when a malicious miner crafts blocks of the same size but filled with their own transactions, thus not draining the mempool what-so-ever? I'm not convinced that incentives will simply be mine-blocks-for-rewards if there is a fork. I think we will see all kinds of attacks on both networks (after this long of a stalemate and the bitterness we are seeing today, it would be naive to think otherwise) and I'm interested to see how BU with it's multiple variables (additional complexity) deals with such attacks. I fully expect them to eat themselves before long and hard code rules to prevent certain things from happening, basically ending up even more restrictive than a simple you-get-what-you-pay-for fee market. we welcome fee paying spam. if you guys want to create valid blocks on our network thats cool man even if you want to do some tests and see if invalid blocks get rejected thats OK too If you are accepting blocks of N size with fee paying transactions, you will also accept my blocks of N size consisting entirely of 0 fee transactions to myself that I've not broadcast but simply put in my blocks. My blocks are valid according to your rules, bloat the chain, do not help reduce the mempool, and still receive block rewards! And because your block had unbroadcast transactions it would take longer to validate than a different block released at about the same time. Because BU has parallel validation of competing chains, your block would lose out even it arrived slightly quicker. It is this orphan risk that creates the cost. Fine, I'll just broadcast all those 0 fee transactions first. I wasn't thinking when I suggested keeping them to myself. They are 0 fee, I have nothing to lose! And remember, I'm here to get paid block rewards to attack the chain. Even if I lose out on some close blocks, so what? ya man wast your money |
|
|
|
7) Even if in that scenario it seems that BU would be at an advange with its increased TPS over BTC, that will lead to more BUcoins arriving at the exchanges and being dumped by BTC supporters. The price of BUcoin will be much lower than BTC, at least for some time (days, weeks, months, maybe forever).
There is already several 10s of thousands transactions waiting for confirmation at most times. As you said, the chaos of a contentious hard fork would possibly increase transaction rates for a time (there will definitely be a lot of people disassociating their bitcoins coins from BUtcoins, which requires transactions). Also, there is the potential for additional spam attacks on both chains. I expect that should BU fork, they will go with the default size of 16 MB at first, just because who changes default settings? I fully expect those BU blocks to be full for a long time (they may even increase soon because of that, I mean, that is their MO). That means, in 60 days the BU chain will have doubled the size of the existing 8 year old chain, plus some. Just something to ponder. default setting for BU is 1MB My mistake, I was remembering this post from PeterR. I'm signalling to miners that I'm ready for bigger blocks by running a node which permits up to 16 MB today.
...and I somehow was under the impression that was default. Still, BU will increase the size, because there will be a back log of transactions (one already exists in most cases), and blocks will be slower than normal because the hash rate will be divided (further increasing the back log). I mean, that's the goal of BU, isn't it? Scale on chain to get rid of this back log and reduce fees for coffer drinkers? nodes default at 16MB miners default at 1MB EB and generation size. what the individual members of BU want is only a small influence that will guide BU miners to set a good EB its not like miners will simply forgot about all the reasons to keep blocks small. Miners will include everything that contains a transaction fee, even one satoshi. Why? Because even one satoshi is one satoshi. And then came spam................... what if i could prove to the miner that including 1GB worth of TX gives him a 99.99999999999999% chance of getting orphaned oh wait, i dont have to, he will figure it out himself. He will not be able to include a 1GB block since the limit is 16MB. I did not say that. I am saying that at least one will go 16MB and then all hell breaks loose. my node will reject his block. do you honestly think miners will create blocks that bump off significance %'s of nodes and hashing power willy nilly? |
|
|
|
is crypto done??? No, bitcoin is only one of many cryptos. |
|
|
|
7) Even if in that scenario it seems that BU would be at an advange with its increased TPS over BTC, that will lead to more BUcoins arriving at the exchanges and being dumped by BTC supporters. The price of BUcoin will be much lower than BTC, at least for some time (days, weeks, months, maybe forever).
There is already several 10s of thousands transactions waiting for confirmation at most times. As you said, the chaos of a contentious hard fork would possibly increase transaction rates for a time (there will definitely be a lot of people disassociating their bitcoins coins from BUtcoins, which requires transactions). Also, there is the potential for additional spam attacks on both chains. I expect that should BU fork, they will go with the default size of 16 MB at first, just because who changes default settings? I fully expect those BU blocks to be full for a long time (they may even increase soon because of that, I mean, that is their MO). That means, in 60 days the BU chain will have doubled the size of the existing 8 year old chain, plus some. Just something to ponder. default setting for BU is 1MB My mistake, I was remembering this post from PeterR. I'm signalling to miners that I'm ready for bigger blocks by running a node which permits up to 16 MB today.
...and I somehow was under the impression that was default. Still, BU will increase the size, because there will be a back log of transactions (one already exists in most cases), and blocks will be slower than normal because the hash rate will be divided (further increasing the back log). I mean, that's the goal of BU, isn't it? Scale on chain to get rid of this back log and reduce fees for coffer drinkers? nodes default at 16MB miners default at 1MB EB and generation size. what the individual members of BU want is only a small influence that will guide BU miners to set a good EB its not like miners will simply forgot about all the reasons to keep blocks small. |
|
|
|
7) Even if in that scenario it seems that BU would be at an advange with its increased TPS over BTC, that will lead to more BUcoins arriving at the exchanges and being dumped by BTC supporters. The price of BUcoin will be much lower than BTC, at least for some time (days, weeks, months, maybe forever).
There is already several 10s of thousands transactions waiting for confirmation at most times. As you said, the chaos of a contentious hard fork would possibly increase transaction rates for a time (there will definitely be a lot of people disassociating their bitcoins coins from BUtcoins, which requires transactions). Also, there is the potential for additional spam attacks on both chains. I expect that should BU fork, they will go with the default size of 16 MB at first, just because who changes default settings? I fully expect those BU blocks to be full for a long time (they may even increase soon because of that, I mean, that is their MO). That means, in 60 days the BU chain will have doubled the size of the existing 8 year old chain, plus some. Just something to ponder. default setting for BU is 1MB |
|
|
|
This is madness.
 |
|
|
|
I am a bit surprised that noone has mentioned one of the consecuences a split between CORE and BU would have, apart from the AMAZINGLY HUGE volatility lower combined price etc...
1) If Bitcoin is split in two, core side will be at 1MB max block size at that time, and BU with an undetermined but bigger max block size.
2) Both "parties" will start dumping each other strongly. Chaos will reign and volatility could be so huge as to wipe ENTIRE order books up and down. (mainly down, even to 0).
3) All leveraged positions will be wiped on the peaks and valleys.
4) The difficulty will be much higher than the hashrate which, by itself, will create big delays between blocks. It is uncertain how big though.
And this is what I haven't seen anyone mention:
5) There will be a huge spike in transactions with people sending his coins to the exchanges. And I mean an unprecedently HUGE number of transactions. Orders of magnitude higher than anything we have ever seen.
6) Core with its 1MB max block and difficulty over hashrate combined will take ages to move the coins (which is not that bad because there will be less BTC coins arriving at the exchanges to be dumped), BU blocksize...well, I am not sure what it will do in that scenario, but it is possible that it will lead to additional hard forks/blocksize adjustment. Also Orphan blocks will be everywhere.
7) Even if in that scenario it seems that BU would be at an advange with its increased TPS over BTC, that will lead to more BUcoins arriving at the exchanges and being dumped by BTC supporters. The price of BUcoin will be much lower than BTC, at least for some time (days, weeks, months, maybe forever).
I could go on... but the only reasonable conclusion is that all this chaos and confussion will benefit noone (maybe to exchanges in the short period, due to the extreme volatility and huge number of trades) and that all this nonsense must come to and end now.
it all depends on which chain satoshi dumps on... that chain will die. not because he crashed its price but because he expressed his preference |
|
|
|
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-exchanges-unveil-emergency-hard-fork-contingency-plan/According to the statement – backed by Bitfinex, Bitstamp, BTCC, Bitso, Bitsquare, Bitonic, Bitbank, Coinfloor, Coincheck, itBit, QuadrigaCX, Bitt, Bittrex, Kraken, Ripio, ShapeShift, The Rock Trading and Zaif – the exchanges would list the BU asset under the BTU or XBU tickers in the event of a network split, which they collectively say "may be inevitable". That's some really great news! The big exchanges would list BU as an alternative asset in terms of a network split! So even with less hashrate BTC keeps being BTC.Awesome! gr8 news everyone BU is gonna be one of these altcoins that are rising +25% a day |
|
|
|
Morning Jimbo! Manage to grab cheap bitcoins?
Jimbo wakes up in a few hours, its 7AM over there. |
|
|
|
|
i bet its gana go F'ing sideways all bloody weekend again
|
|
|
|
Im really thinking of getting more exposure in alts. We might see sub 1 k :/
altho it MIGHT SEEM like "the right trade"... "the right trade" is almost always the thing that is hardest to do, ie Buying BTC as its crashing or shorting alts that are targeting the moon. |
|
|
|
lemme see if i have this straight - bitcoin core is somehow tied (loosely?) with blockstream, who apparently can't be trusted cause they took bank money. Core wants to implement segwit - allowing, later, blockstream's LN.
on the other hand, we have bitcoin unlimited, who want... well, i'm honestly not sure, but something besides segwit? and LOTS of people here don't trust THAT, parlty due to a recent exposure of a major bug.
or, to sum up - jack shit has been solved regarding scaling in years of arguing.
good job guys.
actually the latest goes somthing like this google created blockstream covertly, blockstream bought some core devs ( the right ones ), in an attempt to centralize development and usage of bitcoin, so that google can rain ruler of the world once all LN payments are backed by the onchain BTC they control BU is a bunch of bitcoiners who dont have a clue. |
|
|
|
Why do coffee purchases need to be censorship-proof again?
Why would a typical consumer need to be censorship-proof again? its not about the coffee its about empowering the poeple |
|
|
|
|
for a lot of poeple there cell phone is an "implant"
it literally never leaves there side.
when they forget it at home, they might experience panic attacks.
so there's no need for an implant, cell phone is just as good if not better then an implant, for all practical purposes
|
|
|
|
bloomberg:While the impasse might be aggravating for those who find bitcoin transactions too sluggish, it’s far better than a blockchain that is too easily modified. After all, immutability is supposed to be a feature, not a flaw. ETH is topped out man 
|
|
|
|
Where would be the best place to keep up to date on whats going to happen re:fork, BU, Segwit news?
Didnt see the news about the hard fork and sold at a much lower point than I would have liked to.
in this thread we predict future news. |
|
|
|
Fork discussions are weird because there is no fork planned.
Every time BTC-e is $20 above Stamp and Finex = oversold?
it went from, if there is a fork to WHEN the fork happens. its understandable tho, at this point forking seems inevitable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
