|
Are you same critical as to other entities as well?
You know there is blockstream?
How much is invested and at risk?
This looks like a FUD thread. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Or in other words, one more time: UASF without mining majority can never succeed, because it's against the nature of bitcoin.
Anyone who doesn't understand this simple fact is not really a very smart bitcoin developer.
Hey Piotr, welcome back. I still miss your Goxbot. Why don't you make a new one for some major exchange? Imho what is wrong with Bitcoin is that there are no incentives for full nodes. If a part (or all, why not) of the Tx fees where distributed to full nodes (maybe according the tx relayed by each one) we would have a much stronger network of some order of magnitudes more full nodes. Moreover the game would be much more fair since anyone with a consumer grade puter could gain like in the good old times. I already made this same proposal here years ago but nobody cared. Maybe now someone will? In the very beginning, miners where full nodes. They ve just overoptimized things and now small user nodes think they control bitcoin. I m very sure miners have to rerun more nodes and bitcoin is back. |
|
|
|
(...) You don't even know what you're talking about and you are making demands!  (...) You really have no idea how Bitcoin works. (...) You take your point. Even two. Very mature. Cry somewhere else. Fact is, you clearly have a very impaired understanding of Bitcoin and the relevant scaling debate. I'll call you out every time you make demands with psuedo-science. Validation requires network bandwidth? Holy cuckoo.
What are you on about? Good luck propagating 15 MB blocks through the network and validating them on time. I really wonder how one still can think that shouting people down might lead to sth good here. No All means trying to 'control' bitcoin, people, forum, ... Is just NOT bitcoin. Try find some people you can sign off you ideas and feel free. Im sure you ll get disrupted the next minute because you did no matter its good or bad. Open your mind and let the big things happen. You are not alone. |
|
|
|
|
OP should rename this thread:
Do I trust my bitcoin miners at all. Or what security we have from PoW ?
We've learned that only PoW is really safe <-> expensive. If you want different things / less safe -> go altcoin .
|
|
|
|
|
Mal kurz:
Für mich war lange schwer zu verstehen, dass Bitcoin eigentlich 'nur' ein Medium ist, ein Protokoll, ein Buchhaltungssystem.
Natürlich kann man das auch bewerten, hängt aber immer von der Verwendung ab. Aber zu allererst ist das neutral.
Sobald man anfängt, die reine Verknappung und die klare Eigentumsbeziehung / -wechsel mit reinnimmt muss man sich um das 'warum?' / 'wozu?' fragen also was für einen Wert hat das ganze für mich / Gesellschaft.
Der simpelste Wert ist nunmal unser Geld mit dem wir versuchen alles Materielle zu bewerten - so geht das ganze los - oder?
|
|
|
|
|
Satoshi was anonymous for some reason.
How stupid are you guys to implement real people in bitcoin?
There is no leader, just ideas and markets.
Bugger off.
|
|
|
|
any other comments on this?
A isolated test net is a nice thing for testing but we will all agree that this is no garantie to find all bugs even the very critical ones. So finally BU runs already live in production mostly save and this is a real luxury and already an advantage over SW. I m also sure that the big miners with their multi million investments have done their job here in depth and decided to go live. A risk is always their mostly correlated with change impact. Have you counted how many lines of code have been changed in SW? I fear we will see same bugs once SW might be executed in prod. |
|
|
|
Too simplistic gentlemen And it's being discussed here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833391.0I am strongly in favour of switching the PoW hashing algorithm to Keccak, CuckooCache, Equihash, or whatever has the best balance of proven hash algorithm & difficulty to develop an ASIC. And I think it should be done before any BU hardfork, any miners unhappy with that should've thought realistically that this day would come. ASICs begone. The CPU mining revolution will be beautiful, Satoshi warned against the development of sole-purpose SHA256 hashing ASIC processors, and today we can see why. All Bitcoiners will mine BTC with their regular PC again. Let's do it. It will be CBANKS altcoin - just do it mate and post in the alt section! |
|
|
|
You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin.
You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in.
There a two paradigms here:
1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating
2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom
You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for.
I am for 2). Crystal clear.
Yeah great, just what bitcoin needs - less engineering Intelligent people can be lazy. Thats a goal.  |
|
|
|
I would still like to see benchmarks on speed advantages segwit claims, over core.
I don't like the way segwit and bitcoin unlimited turn this into a debate about "block size", rather than quantifying what type of real world performance advantages can be obtained by larger blocks. They're avoiding points that would allow people to do legitimate pro versus con breakdowns on the topic.
This reminds me of old school console wars when the sony playstation was a 32 bit console and nintendo tried to convince everyone their console was superior because parts of its hardware architecture were 64 bits.
Bigger isn't necessarily better.
You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin. You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in. There a two paradigms here: 1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating 2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for. I am for 2). Crystal clear. |
|
|
|
It's easy to post on internet forums about this or that, it's hard to maintain a software as sensitive as bitcoin and make it safe.
Go on github and code something if you think you can do better than core devs.
if core devs are independant then they should care more about bitcoin and less about the blockstream leadership. meaning dvs should PEER review all proposals.. and help fix bugs of all..(true independance) but by staying with one brand they have set themselves up as a TIER not a PEER where proposals have been moderated by blockstream employees Bitcoin Forum > Bitcoin > Development & Technical Discussion (Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101)
Child Boards
New Posts Alternative clients
Moderators: gmaxwell, achow101
^ hazard a guess who moderates this People wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr < luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here. Thx I did not even know that the bottleneck = centralization and control is that strong. Who wonders about our situation still? |
|
|
|
If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later. They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now. How could they say "oh well, majority has spoken I suppose" when the actual majority has been running Segwit clients for a month or more now (currently Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network) 'Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network' that's a joke if you wanna be THE high quality tested and best dev team supporter in crypto world. How about hash power - multi million business at stake ? You look desperate... |
|
|
|
A. A. is working for ETH book (and about 'good' safe hard forks ?).
Blockstream is working for AXA, Banks - Blockchains....
G.Max is working for Blocksteem
C Banks is working as GMax fan boy.
Bitcoins needs to fall behind ETH market cap than these fan boys will understand this clusterfuck done by GMax brain washing.
Its dangerous working as a brain washed fan boy.
Sigh
Nobody cares how Blockstream has been funded, even the most bankster haters they also just dont care. Amazing that this argument is only comming from BU shills from the past 2-4 weeks  Yeah - if this your point - I also don't care too much, but rather the conflict of interests they have. And where did I point to BU here ? - I mostly try to show that you cannot sell : (limit on-chain scaling + unlimited off-chain scaling) in one go. Miners will reject this - crystal clear ? |
|
|
|
Yesterday was crazy, you could see the capital fleeing away from bitcoin to Ethereum, as bitcoin's market cap was decreasing Ethereum's was increasing, amazing stuff.
People are starting to vote with their money on the development team's choices, Segregated Witness and Lightning Networks have been controversial since the beginning and eventually it will reflect on the price.
Bitcoin's market cap and trade volume dominance have never been lower, and they will go lower.
The market / people are self-adjusting to the 'limited' use of bitcoin. The equilibrium just allows restricted # of users. Theses must be rich ones now. Poor masses go alt. bye |
|
|
|
This is great news. I was getting a bit worried a hard fork would actually happen, but looks like Jihan's little nerd dream to be the emperor of bitcoin will not happen. Sorry, Core wins another day, and now $3000 are actually possible in 2017.
If you what you are saying is true and bitcoins price will really reach 3000$ this year if Bitcoin Unlimited will be out of the picture then I will support the other group that is against BU. Well I just need to change my mindset since BU have cause the price of bitcoin to deflate and I dont like that thus I will support other means of solving bitcoin problems except for BU. The same argument can be made against core too you know. The other side will blame them for not acting fast enough for having bigger blocks for BTC. We are all only arguing about it now but the real test will come if BTC will go down to under 1000 again and going lower. It's very easy to finger point. Who was and is actually in charge? Who is 'still' in the driver seat and should care about consensus software = fits to all needs, no brainer features & quality, tested, bug-free, leaving no space for alternative bitcoin dev teams and even alt coins. Explaining & convincing of features and their needs - marketing, selling ... Deploying to majority. Keeping things stable & running Who you wanna blame for any failure ? |
|
|
|
Buterin was against segwit because he understand that after segwit all altcoins will die. Altcoiners like roger ver, andressen and hearn are against segwit for the same reason
Oh shit - Litecoin + SW could rule the world than ? Why they don't understand and just do ? Miners must be more stupid than you ... |
|
|
|
Information content = 0 Big funny pictures Page 50 new Wall Observer thread incoming!!! |
|
|
|
The fact that the number of BU nodes is unchanged in light of the above speaks volumes for the type of people running them...
Yes. It demonstrates that we realize that a sub-optimal implementation of the right principles are more valuable than even an unrealizably- ideal implementation of the wrong principles. For the former can asymptotically approach perfection, while the latter is doomed to forever head off in the wrong direction. And there is no proper industrial change management process for open source projects / or bitcoin is just too young compared to Linux ... so its a monster bumpy road we are on obviously. |
|
|
|
|
A. A. is working for ETH book (and about 'good' safe hard forks ?).
Blockstream is working for AXA, Banks - Blockchains....
G.Max is working for Blocksteem
C Banks is working as GMax fan boy.
Bitcoins needs to fall behind ETH market cap than these fan boys will understand this clusterfuck done by GMax brain washing.
Its dangerous working as a brain washed fan boy.
Sigh
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
