|
anyone with brains does not care about the market cap.
all that matters is utility.
what people should be looking at is suggestions of say bitpay/coinbase stop allowing bitcoin to be used through the merchant shopping cart API and instead eth or LTC becoming the merchant shopping cart accepted currency of bitpay/coinbase
|
|
|
|
|
TLDR:
in short if your interested in increasing the base blocksize, then a hard consensus is needed thus asicboost does not become an issue to even bring into the scaling debate
if you want to stick with 1mb base and only do as a soft implementation. then asicboost is a consideration to the debate
waffle version
asic boost is just an efficiency gain much like
same scenario..(patents/competition)
ATI's openCL is an efficiency gain compared to Geforces Kuda.
however if pools wanted to use the efficiency gain then the spare data in a block header cant be used to make 2 merkles for a soft fork to happen.. its not about patents. its not about racism. its just that blockstreams 'soft' approach is not as easy to implement as most think.
but here is the thing
if its a 2merkle (1mb base 3mb witness= 4mb weight) occurs, then asic boost cant occur due to the spare data being used up by the extra merkle to allow soft implementation
if its a 2merkle (2mb base 6mb witness= 8mb weight) then asic boost cant occur due to the spare data being used up by the extra merkle to allow soft implementation
here is the 'mic drop' kicker though..
to get a bigger base, requires hard consensus. which then negates the need to have 2 merkles anyway !!! <- emphasis on this point
and also negates needing to have it as a 2mb base 6mb witness.. it might aswell just be a single block of 8mb where all keypairs sit in the same area. because if your doing a hard consensus anyway, theres no need for the cludge....... obviously
so with a 1 merkle 8mb block for instance, where both native and segwit tx sit in the same area then asic boost can still occur. but the bonus is that segwit keypairs would be part of the 1 merkle upgrade allowing for a nice longer bit of peace for tx's to happily reside in the 8mb weight before it gets filled
get passed the false pretence argument that asicboost is bad efficiency.. and realise that asic boost just stops a soft upgrade.
which becomes no issue if there was a hard consensus upgrade
in short if your interested in increasing the base blocksize, then a hard consensus is needed thus asicboost does not become an issue to even bring into the scaling debate
if you want to stick with 1mb base and only do as a soft implementation. then asicboost is a consideration to the debate
|
|
|
|
I think if you take a good look at the trading volumes, there is something going on.
It´s not all about acceptence the Bitcoin. It´s kinda strange, to see some sell and buy actions.
Selling 100BTC can drop the price with $300. Just take a look at it.
already have.. this is one example of what i said last week but just to ground people  the price movements dont take much these days |
|
|
|
|
no one cares about the market cap. its a meaningless bubble number.
the market cap is meaningless that expands and contracts very easily without needing to spend much to cause a movement
there are no billions of dollars sat in bank accounts backing the market cap
i cna make an altcoin of 5 trillion premined coins. put 1 coin on a public exchange and sell it to myself for $1 .. instantly my crap coin is 'market cap valued' at $5trillion.
if you want to care about 'value' then look at the harder stats to find
~5m active bitcoiners
~500k merchants 'accepting' bitcoin.
no other altcoin/crap coin even comes close to those valuable stats
|
|
|
|
And what does it change?
You are still basically creating money out of thin air. I agree that you can hypothetically reduce mining costs to naught, but you won't be able to change the major, fundamental flaw of this setup. Namely, that the coins just created have no economic validation behind their coming into existence. With fiat, as long as government doesn't abuse the system, new money is created by the banks via credit, i.e. the whole process has at least some economic justification supporting the issuance of new money (validated by the demand from the economic entities)
lol there can be many ways.(again hypotheticals which can be fun if you allow yourself to think outside of the box) take for instance that each block reward per school is not based on just making a block. but based on school test result(data in a block) totals giving a block value. EG imagine a school of 1000 pupils and if they all got an A on a weekly test (A represents lets say £20 'credits'/new money) the school can earn upto £20k block reward. and if they all got an A- on a weekly test (A represents lets say £19.50 'credits'/new money) the school can earn upto £19.5k block reward. and if they all got an B on a weekly test (A represents lets say £19 'credits'/new money) the school can earn upto £19k block reward. so lets say on average the 1000 students average C grade. the school would get £18k each school each week not only creates new money based on test results of students. but the 'value' AND test results can be verified publicly to ensure no test cheating occured. and it also incentivizes schools to try harder to teach kids to better themselves to get better grades thus more funding. the value is then established because each students tests over their 10-15 years of school life could show they have earned the school upto £800 a year (£8k-£12k school life) which universities/employers could use the childs grades to value them as potential recruits for university/employment, and thus value changes hands i can think of hundreds of hypotheticals of how to give a block reward transferable value. but ultimately those school block rewards'student credits' would be fiat2.0 which by law would be legal tender.. and by law if you understand the archaic fiat system employers/retailers/debtors would need to transact in it, which is where 'fiat' has ultimately attained having value anyway |
|
|
|
The sleep of reason produces monsters
And sick imagination produces even more ugly ones. If you really understand what I mean, then you should see that your imagination is drawing only a perverted reflection of reality (that's what any imagination basically does). As I told you, mining is just another perverted and ugly method of creating money out of thin air (well, by wasting resources). Until you address this issue somehow (with or without imagination), your whole idea is meaningless and pointless. In fact, it is just stillborn
imagine that 'mining' was not 20 pools competing to win where the aim of the game is to outpower each other. but imagine each school just had 1PoW miner and they work in unison to lock data in and the funds are distributed through the treasury. yep each school/hospital just had 1PoW mining node. where there is no benefit in a school/hospital to run more than 1node we wont be having 20 pools with ~ 20,000asics per pool(10k-50k range per pool) = 400k asics it would be more like UK having 25000 asics spread over 25000 locations(1asic per location) P.S i knew about promissory notes(credit agreements) over a decade ago(2007 events enlightened me) and how they are the archaic fiat money creation mechanism |
|
|
|
Not so sure ...
how long it will take to move 46million outputs to be in segwit kypairs to then actually start utilising the witness area. hint. its not instantly filed just because of 'activation' remember native keys can only fit ~2500 tx a block usually spending just 2 outputs on average (5000outputs spent per 10 minutes) do the maths. (hint 9200 blocks minimum) hint if every block was fill with tx that were ALL moving to segwit keypairs. it would take 2 months of mempool bloating drama to get every output over to segwit to achieve: barrysilbert(2b:6w) base=2mb witness =2.2 4.2mb total weight
imagine spammers stayed with native keys and 75% of base block was native key.. only 25% of base block was segwit bip9 segwit(1b:3w): base=1mb witness =0.25 1.25mb total weight silbertsegwit(2b:6w): base=2mb witness =0.5 1.5mb total weight imagine spammers stayed with native keys and 50% of base block was native key.. 50% of base block was segwit bip9 segwit(1b:3w): base=1mb witness =0.55 1.55mb total weight silbertsegwit(2b:6w): base=2mb witness =1 3mb total weight imagine spammers stayed with native keys and 25% of base block was native key.. 75% of base block was segwit bip9 segwit(1b:3w): base=1mb witness =0.77 1.77mb total weight silbertsegwit(2b:6w): base=2mb witness =1.5 3.55mb total weight imagine no spammers stayed with native keys and 100% of base block was segwit bip9 segwit(1b:3w): base=1mb witness =1.1 2.1mb total weight silbertsegwit(2b:6w): base=2mb witness =2.2 4.2mb total weight |
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I quite like the combo of 2MB base size and segwit, just not the miners' agreement's alleged planned execution of it. It still only smells of a bargaining tool to me and hopefully that's all it will end up being (see chest thumping.)
[thumps cognition] What makes you think that 2 MB base + 6 MB witness blocks aren't going to get filled up to the 8MB max very quickly? That's a potential 40GB+ of new blockchain per month, 360GB per year. Are you stupid? Because it's either me or you that is i know my post will get deleted but here goes 1. to even fill the 6mb witness area. people need to first move funds over to segwit key pairs. <- most important part 2. IF EVERY tx used segwit keypairs then the 2mb base will be filled but only ~2.2mb of the 6mb witness will be filled making 4.2mb data weight 3. comparison of bip9 segwit IF EVERY tx used segwit then the 1mb base will be filled but only ~1.1mb of the 3mb weight will be filled making 2.1mb data 4. to get to that point a majority of the 46m outputs need to be on sgwit keys for the majority of users to be spending 'segwit' outputs to achieve anything close to it it would take alot of time, months/years if ever for a block to be bip9segwit 2.1mb of 4mb or BSsegwit 4.2mb of 8mb, due to the headache of moving funds across to new keypairs to dilute down the native keypairs that only utilise the base block |
|
|
|
|
if people were smart enough to think about code... it would be both
EG
a new fee priority formulae that if your coins are over 1 day old you get cheap fee's onchain. if under a day old the fee's escalate immensely so that it stops spammers spamming every block repeatedly.
this then makes things like LN for the quick repeat more than once a day spends have a niche.
in short
if your a day-trader or faucet raider wanting to move funds every 10 minutes.. use LN.
if you only buy something once every couple days you will benefit from onchain utility
thus its not an all on or all off chain. but a fair mix dependant on individuals needs
|
|
|
|
As others have mostly said, use it to mine a few hundred coins and probably report it to the devs. I'm not averse to the idea of getting rich, but I also don't want to destroy Bitcoin and the faith people have in it; perhaps I should just mine a bunch of shitcoins...
Sneaky bastard  I think I will do the same thing, though not reporting it back to the devs, it is your invention, why will you dispose it to the devs? You invented something that will make you rich, aren't you fascinated with that. If I did found a way like that, I can make my name bigger than any other bitcoin holders in the world, invest it on company, and maybe, also, make my own company imagine this though. imagine you had 14% of the network and could make a 20% efficiency gain of your 14%(bringing you to 16.  you could just secretly keep it to yourself.. OR ask for 3% profit from every competing pool to let them use your tech. which by everyone using your tech brings you back down to 14%.. but bcause your taking a cut from everyone it all adds up that your still getting equivelent to 17% income while only 14% hash which when all things are considered makes the entire network 20% stronger because everyones using it and your getting 3% of the network income.. |
|
|
|
What you fail to notice is that you don't need a lot of money to have electricity for your bulb and a heater and that toast in the morning. Anyone can afford it by spending just a few hours a day doing something productive. If they can't get those few cents to pay their bill, they won't get more to improve their lifestyle. They are alive, so they are eating something and living somewhere. What makes you think that supporting these needs will make homeless bums pursue a better life?
first of all you have to learn why people cant get jobs. you will find that thse people who you call bums usually have a health issue or two which makes keeping a job difficult. then when having problems holding down a job, some find that the issues and stresses of signing on for 'job support' benefits is beyond their mental capabilities so they end up being left outside of social security. if you take away the snobbery of fox news and media protrayal of homeless and start actually addressing the problem properly you will see that its not as simple as 'just get a job' take for instance.. veterans.. good work history, shows they follow orders, organised even willing to risk their lives for an income.. yet there are reasons why veterans end up being homeless and starve to death. its not just about "get a job" now imagine. that without it being TAX.. the treasury(public funds) could pay for social securities and health and education without... (i am going to emphasis this for the Nth time) without TAX
second of all the amount of "tax" that goes to pay for unemployment is such a small percentage of the treasury budget that just the interest rate alone covers it
thirdly im not just talking about unemployment. im talking about pensions and public sector funded housing/elderly care homes/ health. so dont try to turn it into a snobby debate about the poor must be scum if they need help.
fourthly for emphasis so dont try to turn it into a snobby debate about the poor must be scum if they need help. my hypothetical is about taking "tax" away from the debate. by making pblic sector issues self funded.. not tax funded. so snobby comments about tax burdens dont even come into the debate |
|
|
|
What these damn miners are not getting is this : --> Higher fees = less transactions --> Higher fees = less adoption People will use Bitcoin less as a currency and more like a investment commodity. What happened to the "Cashless payment system" envisioned by Satoshi? Will greed ultimately kill this technology too.... I think so.  seriously stop reading reddit!! its core that remove the fee control mechanisms not the pools try to follow the code updates not the reddit scripts. i have noticed over the last couple years your posts have been diluted down to just bing the repeated rhetoric of reddit script writers. please take time to research stuff because your content is starting to appear more and more like the crap rhetoric rather than the open minded researched stuff you use to post about. |
|
|
|
51% the shit out of the blockchain to reshape it how you wanted it?
This. Without the slightest hesitation. first you claimed nashian religion of bitcoin with nash as satoshi then you claimed you knew all about bitcoin but failed understanding of consensus now you want to split bitcoin... you are obviously not interested in bitcoin and just want to disrupt it. so please either spend 6 months learning bitcoin. or go play with your fiat and stop making bad judgements of bitcoin looking at Dinos other posts.. I don't see why a chain split is to be avoided ; I would say, on the contrary: the more it splits, the more different versions can compete in the market, and the better the outcome will be.
its obvious he doesnt know about the network and only wants to split the network many many times to multiply coins so he can get rich before running back to fiat. guys like this care nothing about bitcoins longevity. |
|
|
|
who cares about sig spammers income. maybe they should care more about bitcoin and less about spamming posts for an income trying to force something in where only 30% of the nodes want to keep uptodate with the latest core software https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ - Satoshi:0.14.1 (30.54%) only 32% of pools want segwit http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png and even on litecoin the pools are not even using segwit.. their blockrewards remain as L addresses not segwit 3 addresses. discusfish(f2pool) - LajyQBeZaBA1NkZD... litecoinpool.org - LTCPodKwHJoVsRJn... givemecoins - LachGCFMERH3SbVB... multipool.us - LTr4CoxaLaKLRn9x... just goes to show how many are actually wanting to change what should be don now is not make it mandatory activation.. but instead make a plan B. something the community can accept. no more cludgy code of bad maths, temporary/empty gestures of hope and fake features.. but actual code that can actually do the job most of these blockstream huggers have no clu how segwit even works after activation. and should have spent more time reading code and learning the reality of it and not just sig spammed for income their fake worship of wanting core as their god. to: pereira4 &billy bob. no matter how much you kiss ass copying each others glossy images of pie charts and scripted out of context crap. most people care more about the code than your sig spamming wishes |
|
|
|
Economically, that would be six of one and half a dozen of the other
In fact, it would be even worse than inflation tax (via outright printing excessive amounts of money) since when government prints money, it just enters figures in their spreadsheet on a Central bank server without much ado and beating about the bush. Thus, it doesn't damage the environment by burning electricity to mine coins, while mining coins via block rewards is basically the same printing money out of thin air (with terrible waste of resources at that). In short, you obviously don't understand how money works and on which principles it is created. Strictly speaking, banks don't create money out of thin air, they create credit but they can't do it unless there are borrowers. No borrowers no money, no money no honey
i actually do understand again this topic is about hypotheticals. meaning you can stretch the imagination beyond the limited concepts of wall street. imagine something new. something that actually solves problems. if you just try to change crypto to fit wall street world you are failing the point of crypto.. but if you try to change the world to fit crypto then many beneficial things can happen think deeper than just standard fiat world here ill give you a magic wand. (___ (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((___() here ill also give you a ladder so you can get out of the box || || ||======|| || || ||======|| || || ||======|| now pretend you could do anything, and come up with hypotheticals of how things could change for the better. remember its hypothetical. so dont limit yourself to the old archaic rules.. free your mind |
|
|
|
|
if there was a more efficient way to do things, ofcourse you would use it.
its not as much about personal gains. its also about adding more strength to the network.
all this asicboost crap about some say to temporarily nuke it with segwit, is just opening up the possibility of outsiders using it to compete with less hardware.
its always better for bitcoiners to use it on the mainnet. than to not use it and let some outsider make an alternative chain that overtakes the main chain and then gets introduced as the main chain later.
..
its much like the GPU days. should we have not allowed ATI gpu's to mine because open CL was better than geforce's Kuda
its much like the CPU days. should we have not allowed dual/quad core to mine. because they were better than single core
in my eyes if there is a more efficient way to do things. then everyone should be allowed to do it. to protect the network.
trying to rule it out with cludgy code is not protecting the network. its slowing down the growth of strength of the network due to 'politics'
|
|
|
|
|
as for the OP's point
he is right
within a less than a thousand transactions you will spend 1BTC.
imagine it this way it does not matter if you have $2000 or $200,000
within a thousand transactions you are going to spend $2000 just on fee's
yes the snobby rich will say "thats fine because i have $200,000" ... but if you think passed the snobbery and realise the unbanked developing countries see $2000 as alot of money
for the snobs:
stop trying to preach to the converted how bitcoin is utopia and works perfectly. it doesnt
the core devs have REMOVED fee control code. removed reactive fee facilities that bring fee's down during low demand
stop turning bitcoin into something only the snobs should use and be 'entitled' to by pretending that its bitcoins intended purpose or only possible utility, by allowing devs to remove/halt utility with their snobbery
|
|
|
|
Wonder how many realize this. Basically you are feeding the whales. At this time PayPal fees are cheaper  Based on this and other analysis I have read, I don't think the fees is way cheaper than bitcoin and aside that even if it is PayPal is cheaper, I would still prefer bitcoin than that simply because of the regulations around PayPal where scammers can exploit the most important is the reversible nature of transactions no matter the mode or form of transferring it. i suggest you never use LN.. research CSV revoke codes and you will see what i mean |
|
|
|
While the fee looks very high and not suitable for small/micro transaction, it still lower than most payment service if you're from different country or send big amount of money. If you're angry with high fees, consider use altcoin, use lower fees if you're not in hurry or use payment service that you think have lower fees  facepalm its not about small/ micro transactions. its about normal people transactions. an average tx is about 400~ bytes. fee on average is 250sat/byte. = 0.00100000 = ~$2 which even paying a week of groceries or a week of car fuel is like 4% tx fee yep 4% of first world utility weekly things or worse 6 months of thing in developing countries has a 4% tx fee.. again dont compare bitcoin to the most expensive 'other' methods.. think of it in comparison to average/normal methods remove utility for average joe and bitcoin becomes useless to average joe. bitcoin becomes only used by the snobby rich. thus becomes as corrupt as how snobby rich have corrupted fiat bitcoin meant to exist to solve this issues of snobby rich, to help the unbanked. letting core halt REAL natural growth is a snobby mindset and dont even go exaggerating it to be about 'gigabytes by midnight' or 'coffee'.. again thats just the snobby rich excuse to not let bitcoin naturally grow. telling people to use other services or alternative networks is just trying t push people away from bitcoin (triple facepalm) there are many ways to code in rules to find a equilibrium without going into making bitcoin only for the snobs. P.S i have many many many btc and born and raised in a first world country with a long anscestry of such. yet even i can see passed my own lifestyle to recognise the issues .. remember this. people on this forum have already heard about bitcoin. they dont need snobs to try stroking ego's and glossing over the bad points to sell the ever narrowing path to what they pretend is utopia. they dont need to be preached to be converted. people reading this forum dont need the gloss.. they prefer the hard truths. you can only solve an issue when you admit there is an issue |
|
|
|
imagine every school hospital and emergency service was the 'mining pool' of a new fiat coin.
the rewards pay for the public services and the wages of public servants trickle out the funds to the wider economy.
What's required for a miners to exist? Transactions. Who would want to buy, hodl, and spend some coin for your local community outside of your local community? Would that small volume be enough to support the currency and therefore generate the rewards from mined blocks to fund the public services? Most areas of the world already have welfare assistance...what does Universal Basic Income do that welfare programs are lacking? And please don't tell me that UBI would be more money for every person, because if that's what it is then it's just a fancy world for a tax hike. And that's fine, but let's call it what it is. 1. this whole topic is about hypotheticals. so feel free to expand your mind beyond the walls and rules of wall street. 2. its not about more money for everyone. its about ensuring everyone has a minimal SURVIVAL amount 3. my hypothetical is not about everyone gets a lifestyle income to go on non-stop vacation because money is meaningless.. its about everyone has a basic SURVIVAL amount to not starve/freeze to death. 4. my hypothetical is not about being funded via tax. its about taking the 'money creation' away from corporate banks. and making money creation occur in the public sector.(government treasury only funded by blockrewards) thus no tax is required to fund the vulnerable, which is actually a tax reduction, not hike imagine it. no corporate banks. only public sector mining pools. no transaction fee's(tax) only block rewards |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
