Core devs have adjusted to the situation in the correct way, and that is, to put the node decentralization as the first priority. satoshi would have agreed with them if he was still around. He would hate to see the stupid situation we are at right now with idiots claiming segwit is a bad idea.
lol your talking about node distribution. but CORE want to be center of bitcoin. they want to be at the CORE. thats why they chose that name. they call anything not CORE an altcoin. if everyone is running core code and require the spoon feeding of core devs.. then its not decentralized even if the distribution was scattered over a million locations. yes data is scattered but the rules are dictated from one location. no choice no valiance no chance to veto out bad idea's.. whatever core hand out the sheep accept. blindly following the hand that feeds them so put distribution in your left hand.. and then look in your right hand and you will see that core want control. centralization is about control. not location. |
|
|
|
|
ok guys.. lets do it this way.
without overhyping features like bitcoins speed while unconfirmed.. talk about bitcoin in the REAL usecase scenario of reality.
lets see some real advertising pitches of what you would want to see on tv.
remember it has to give an example of a real customer use
also how to obtain it.
and its advantages...
but all stated using normal laymen (old granny/hill billy understanding words).
try to not over hype/exaggerate/lie.
lets see peoples best sales pitch
|
|
|
|
no. you have it backwards.
i am 100% bitcoin. i hate altcoins. but i can atleast see the bigger picture.
Oh, really? How about this then: im not saying there will be 7billion different currencies. like a deisik coin and a franky coin. but just having one currency to cover everyone also have its negatives too me, myself loves bitcoin. but i can atleast think beyond my personal love and see the reality of both the positive and negatives when thinking of bitcoin in context of the real world if bitcoin become a one world currency. it would become no better then the corrupt IMF managed world monetary system. we can already see the corruption starting now with blockstream trying to get IMF top of the foodchain status. thats why we need diversity |
|
|
|
Who is the Rothschild family and how do I marry into it?  all marriage proposals by the father of the bride must be submitted and peer reviewed 5 years before the birth of the bride, by the family wishing to be wedded to a rothchild. dowry's begin at $1billion dollars deposit and no refund policy |
|
|
|
|
at the moment i think the rothchilds are using all the dollars to buy up cheap syrian land and precious metals. and then when american tax payers are left with a bill to rebuild syria after all the damage america done. the rothchilds will sell it back at a premium.
right now syria is a real estate gold mine. and its going to leave america in huge debt repairing the damage while those that got in quick to grab syrian land are gonna profit
|
|
|
|
promote commercially?
bitcoin is not a slice of cheese or a toy car.. its a currency Excuse me if I'm confusing you with someone else Though this is hardly the case since it must have been you after all who had been proposing recently an idea of free competition between currencies for their users. But where there is competition, there should necessarily be aggressive marketing and intrusive promoting, right? Otherwise, how people would learn about a deisik coin and a franky coin? Oh, wait, you may not want to advertise your coin at all since it is so good and shiny that it doesn't even need users altogether! no. you have it backwards. i am 100% bitcoin. i hate altcoins. but i can atleast see the bigger picture. advertising bitcoin to billions now will bottleneck it. people will scream blue murder at the headaches of trying to get it. and when they finally do, they realise the bottleneck is causing them issues when trying to use bitcoin. EG fee war EG transaction limit EG lack of diverse places to buy bitcoin without life history needed EG no real advertising of where bitcoin can be spent. bitcoin is great. but so disorganised and not ready for mainstream, meaning that any mainstream advert of bitcoin as just a currency/asset will actually cause negative experiences and just end up becoming a dramatic event to play around with the fiat price.. we need to grow bitcoins infrastructure first to show the world bitcoin is a better CHOICE than fiat. rather then advertise purely for some speculation that results in people getting more fiat rich
here is my mindset when i see someone trying to sell gold. if gold is so great why are you wasting money trying to give gold away? .. think about it |
|
|
|
|
promote commercially?
bitcoin is not a slice of cheese or a toy car.. its a currency.
im all for companies that sell products advertise they accept bitcoin. and that will be great
but advertising bitcoin purely for bitcoin.. sounds more like someone is desperate for a speculative FIAT price rise so he can jump out back to fiat land. and doesnt understand bitcoin.
yes there is the exaggerated 'hope' you can advertise. but if you were to make a realistic real world advertisement of bitcoin based on the reality of the state of bitcoin right now. there is not much to get excited about.
even goldsmiths dont really advertise gold as just gold. they have to gloss it up a bit by turning it into a shiny bit of jewellery or a carefully designed circular disc.
bitcoins infrastructure and utility need to grow. first
anyone wanting to advertise bitcoin for bitcoin right now ultimately only cares about getting FIAT rich, and has either no clue about bitcoin or what bitcoin really needs right now
|
|
|
|
No Franki1, I can tell you, those are more the exception than the rule. I work on contract basis in African countries for a few months every year, and when we are operating from there, we have bad internet access and the electricity supply is also a problem. We have to run backup generators and UPS's combos 24/4 to keep things going. It is not as straight forward as you are saying, because the inter-continetal fiber access restrict the amount of internet that can be re-distributed to the public. Bandwidht will be a problem, but I think OP is talking about Disk space.  if you think in a world of online gaming HD broadcasting and facetime calling. that 5400 nodes are even putting a dent into the transcontinental/intercontinental fibre limits.. then you need to get a job on the comedy circuit. as for africa. i hav done some stuff there in remote places.. and where a solar panel and a RaspbrryPi3 and a 4G 'dongle' is a cheap solution.. africans laugh that technology is not the problem. the transaction fee is but yea lets address the op's question in short: bitcoin 'data' does not have a problem bitcoin data is not a world concern. the transaction fee is expanding block sizes allows more transactions which allows the fee to not spike/increase so fast thus allowing more people to desire bitcoins utility. the bloat caused by that growth is of no harm |
|
|
|
i think its not going to be a big problem, if the blockchain increasing in size and it realize that the bandwidth will create problems then the the bandwidth package should be increase according to the demand and usage.
i have seen in places like africa, Ukraine, mongolia, russia, brazil, to name just a few 'poor' areas where playing call of duty while livestreaming is not an issue. i have seen thousands of thousands of people in those countries making youtube video's, facetiming, and doing many bandwidth heavy tasks. we are not in the dark ages where it takes 2 minutes to load a aol homepage anymore. internet speeds are not slow. they can however be throttled down by your ISP playing the greedy game of dropping supply to make people pay extra. if your ISP has no 5 year plan to up its average cap. then start looking for a new ISP. though its not a need now. ISP's should not be holding its customers to ransom. so you have plenty of years to switch to a different ISP, but in general ISP's should all have a 5 year plan. even the mobile/cellular networks have a 5 year plan.. 5G will be more then people need in the next 5 years than bitcoin will require in 10 years. meaning no issue. dont blame bitcoin for your ISP's caps. blame your choice of ISP |
|
|
|
Let's not mix liberals with libertarians here. I consider myself a libertarian, but by no means a social liberal. Social liberals are responsible for the immigration problem in Europe. They think we should open our borders and allow people to live wherever they want, share everything with the newcomers and welcome them with open arms. That's what they did in Sweden, France, Germany and many more. They are childish people thinking that we are all equal and will live together in peace singing kumbaya.
You betray personal liberty at the altar of the State. Ayn Rand, known as one of the most effective and influential exponents of free market capitalism and individual freedom, viewed open borders and free immigration as obvious. http://openborders.info/self-ownership-versus-state-ownership/if you want to be free to travel without being accosted by state troopers demanding your property if its over $10k.. then expect someone else to have the same freedom too open borders or closed borders is not a liberal vs libertarian debate.. its a racism debate, picking and choosing who should have liberal freedoms is not a freedom. i laugh when americans think they deserve the right to travel to any country and do as they please, but then dont recipricate.. thats racial hypocrisy not liberal/libertarian/conservatism EG USA americans want to go to cuba, tijuana, brazil whenver they like.. but the opposite. they cry out invasion EG UK dont let muslims on the euro tunnel to the uk. but as soon as france stops the brits from getting on the euro tunnel to go watch a Euro football game or go on a spanish holiday/club18-30.. there would be uproar EG UK we want to go to india for a year. but we dont want indians to come here for a year |
|
|
|
Blockchains efficient? They are not compared to the databases banks are using now. Blockchains are slow, use too much storage and bandwidth. Also a real blockchain uses Proof of Work which is considered wasteful in the use energy by most people who do not get that it is actually a breakthrough.
We will soon see all these private "blockchain" pitches by different developers to pivot into something else and drop the word "blockchain".
your thinking of bitcoins blockchain. trying to fit bitcoins concept into the banking industry.. wipe your mind of bitcoin and concentrate on underlying blockchain, again without thinking about all the unique bits that separates bitcoin from the other altcoins. like going back to the design board and opening your mind to design your very own altcoin. it doesnt need to be all data on every node(bitcoin) or all data on one server(banking).. it can be inbetween aswell EG a texas sidechain where all the banks in texas reinforced each other. california have a different sidechain where all the banks in california reinforced each other imagine each block is not hashed by PoW with a 10 minute target. but instead signed by xx regional hubs/bank branches in a split second. imagine it like live data is instantly signed off as soon as its altered. and this continues on for a month. then at the end of the month. its locked for good, as historirc record. and then a new block copy is opened up to then change live. like a monthly statement of locked historic blocks and a live block ontop that is the 'current balance block' making the live active block (much like mempool/LN) editable until its locked. but trusted available balance due to instant multisig signing imaging instead of one central server hosting every bank account data, there was instead a bank branch that had its own account holders (sidechain) where they all inter-communicate between sidechains, like the same way routing numbers /sort codes recognise which HQ server to address for particular banking customers. but this time the data is distributed into hubs/regions/clusters/sidechains. once you wipe your mind of bitcoin and see how loose the term blockchain is. you realise blockchain alone is just an empty tool. but is a tool that can do some very funky and unthought about things |
|
|
|
These days there are too many talks about blockchain. So, is blockchain real or hype?
Everything about it is hype. Most of the banks that claim they will use a private blockchain only needs a shared database for their needs. The developers trying to pitch for those banks to use a "blockchain" are being scammed. Banks have no use for a blockchain. If they think they do, use Bitcoin. blockchain alone is just 'programmable' databases. a slight evolution of old database abilities. banks DO actually see benefits of this. and benefits of having their own system as oppose to using bitcoin (100% control of the whole thing for instance) but banks will not need/ use ALL of the extra layer security that bitcoin uses ontop of 'blockchain' in short. old banking system.. lets call it 1% secure.. 1% efficient banks want 40% efficient/security gain... yet bitcoin is near 100% so not as good as bitcoin. but better than the old system.. while having full control of their invention |
|
|
|
The blockchain is definite real. The unique features are that it is de-centralized and tamper-proof. This is valuable for financial systems and in a few years we should see massive adoptions.
a wall is tamper proof, unless the mortar is weak (chaining mechanism) the mortar can be mined to find a special unique ingrediant per brick(block) (PoW) or let the labourers sign their brick(block) with their own feacal matter(PoS, PoA) a wall can be in one location. or copied in many locations to back each other up. blockchain can protect one database table of results by chaining it to another. thus security its contents from file corruption but you can also copy that multiple tables in different locations as an extra precaution. but copying to multiple locations is not a pre-requiest. just an extra option. it does not need to even be distributed between strangers publicly. it can be distributed within locked systems. what makes bitcoin special is that bitcoin did not settle for the easiest route. bitcoin added many layers above blockchain to reinforce the data to many levels of magnitude that blockchain alone has. this is why although there are 1000+ altcoins. all blockchain based.. bitcoin remains the stronger of the many. |
|
|
|
I dont really get the question. Are you saying it is just an imaginary thing that is created by belief?  Blockchain is real. I dont think someone can just create something like that and make it this popular. i think the OP is asking more in the manner of is blockchain a real 'final product' or just hyping a tool without understanding the final product the tool can make. EG "house bricks" they are going to solve homelessness =hype. because land, mortar, basic utilities, planning permission, and labour, are all extra layers needed to solve homelessness. a brick is just a tool bricks are just a single layer tool. not a final product I think you are correct, and on that basis all the hype about "blockchain" is just bankers trying to create new products that have the same old problems. If you put a load of bricks in a long line, then you've got a blockchain ( well maybe a blockline), but you haven't got a house. bricks(blocks) are mortared(chained) together. so a blockchain can be used to make many things. but without direction/design you just have a wall or a totem. without utilities and planning it wont be a house. |
|
|
|
Let's not mix liberals with libertarians here. I consider myself a libertarian, but by no means a social liberal. Social liberals are responsible for the immigration problem in Europe. They think we should open our borders and allow people to live wherever they want, share everything with the newcomers and welcome them with open arms. That's what they did in Sweden, France, Germany and many more. They are childish people thinking that we are all equal and will live together in peace singing kumbaya.
^ there we have my second point in a nut shell.. even within the liberal 'camp' theres a grey area. same for the conservative camp.. thus the terms are too loose because not all liberals want to be liberals. and instead want to be an offshoot of liberal not all tories want to be tories. and instead want to be an offshoot of tories the terms lack real definition and lack direction. thus become meaningless in the real world of diversity |
|
|
|
OK-
So a company gets an irrevocable license from you. Then, after some time you unilaterally 'deem' them a 'patent aggressor'. What then? Do you revoke their irrevocable license? I thought so. So anytime you want to go after someone, just allege they are a 'patent aggressor'. Since there is no uniform means by which one can be discretely determined a 'patent aggressor' you can revoke anyone's license anytime.
nah what maxwell is saying is blockstreams DLP might be wrote that people can step away by making a 180day announcement.. but in reality blockstream wont set them free from the DLP but switch it to a royalty paying FRANDS term in essense by tying your code to blockstreams DLP. they own your ass.. they can change the conditions all they want, but you can never free yourself from them. once your in, your in. |
|
|
|
|
firstly
if anyone shouts doomsdays of 8mb blocks tomorrow and 80mb blocks next year.. SLAP yourself with a reality stick and then go for a walk and see outside your little bubble theory..
now with reality.
20 years ago if i told you that while having a 56k modem and a 3gb hard drive that in the future, it will seem absolutely normal that something 100x your maximum storage capacity will fit on a fingernail. you could not comprehend that.
if i told you that, it will seem absolutely normal that while watching a movie via the internet. your other family members can play a movie quality game with hundreds of others on the internet LIVE. while also recording it and then LIVE uploading it all at the same time. you could not comprehend that.
..
so if 4tb hard drives are the norm now.. expect alot larger in 20 years.
also. lets say we went from
2mb base blocks in 2018 (yea dont have hope for 2017)
4mb base blocks in 2021
8mb base blocks in 2024
16mb base blocks in 2027
32mb base blocks in 2030
64mb base blocks in 2033
128mb base blocks in 2036
128mb=18gb a day.. (thats not huge, considering in 20 years 4K HDTV via cabl will be the norm. where 4minutes of 4KHD is 20gb)
yes 128mb blocks running all day is less bandwidth than watching a true 4K HDTV show for only 4 minutes
yes 128mb blocks is only 6 terrabyte a year.. AGAIN dont comprehend it using todays concept.. think 20 years of technical expansion.. 6tb will be small fry
|
|
|
|
|
dont get me wrong i understand your premiss
but talking about adding PoW prerequisite
is like saying an engine has to runs on unleaded petroleum liquid instead of steam and wood, or jet fuel.
talking about public distribution prerequisite
is like saying an engine has to run on an open road, instead of railtracks or the sky.
here is mine
blockchain is not an end product. its just an engine
btc is a car that uses an engine. and runs on a open road network
hyperledger is a cross-state lines train that uses an engine. and runs on a corporate rail network
|
|
|
|
Yes, I do not believe that Non-PoW coins are technically using the "blockchain", IMO.
(Though it doesn't matter now, since it will take a hundred years before the term is corrected, if it is.)
I think, in theory, it should be a new chain type, even though the parts are mostly the same.
For example, a plane and car have roughly the same parts and functions except certain fundamental parts.
Now the car was invented first and then the plane, but we do not call planes "cars or flying cars" or such.
Yet, with cryptocurrency currently, we say each different proof of blank system are all using the "blockchain".
That would mean we are all saying, "my car has an engine" and "my plane has an engine", but that doesn't
describe what the intent or purpose of the engine is for that technology. It doesn't really make sense for
identification or understanding. Each different proof of blank system should have a different chain name
that distinguishes between the chains security/work mechanism.
For example:
PoW - blockchain (since it was first, otherwise it would be workchain) ?sha256hashchain?
PoS - stakechain
PoB - burnchain
But, if we use the term "blockchain" as just a superficial term, we shouldn't continue to say that Bitcoin invented
the "blockchain" because then it did not, but invented the proof of work chain, which was the first "blockchain"
until PoS was created, and then they co-opted the term, and now all other proof systems co-opted the term, so
everything is a blockchain now, and even recently, private centralized non-proof ledgers can also be a
blockchain if they have a block here and there that can chain here and there.
I think the term has be watered down to the point of irrelevance.
you suggest because trains invented the first combustion engine. we should not call car 'engines' engines. simply because an engine doesnt define the difference between what a car, train or plane is used for. blockchain is not the big special endpoint technology. it is just a small element. what i am seeing is if we emphasise PoW as a pre-requisite then we are simply kissing Adam Backs ass for his 1997 'hashcash' more so then actually recognizing bitcoin as a combination of 10+ technology/concepts that uniquely came together. oops did i forget to mention PoW came before bitcoin/blockchain, sorry thought that was common history knowledge merging adams backs PoW with blockchain. is not defining anything. but shifting definitions to kiss someones ass trying to add as many 'optional extra's into the banner blockchain doesnt help |
|
|
|
|
conservatives believe in corporate freedom
libertarians believe in personal freedom.
conservatives believe in people paying tax to hand to the corporations
libertarians believe in corporations paying tax to hand to the people
conservatives believe in people being restricted in what they can do unless they pay a corporation a fee
libertarians believe in corporations being restricted in what they can do unless they pay a fee
though i said all that above.
the 'branding' of political terminology is loose. its a scale because not everyone is a robot that fits perfectly into a descriptor.
so dont knitpick if you dont quite fit either.. and actually be happy that your free to be in the middle or outside.
the downside of this grey area/scaling.. is that one liberal can pledge one thing. but later mean another because its such a loose definition
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
