-snip-
Regarding your recent mention of reducing the block generation time, I asked on IRC. Apparently even with all the relay improvements, they are not adequate to reduce the generation time safely to e.g. 5 minutes claimed Maxwell. There were a few more people giving their opinion at the time, but I forgot to save a copy of the chat. This is quite unfortunate though, I'd definitely like to see 2017 data for this kind of expertiment. Maybe a testnet with constantly full 1 MB blocks and 5 min block interval. Thx for doing this. To me a 5min interval (halving the reward) would be a sign of flexibility and step into right direction. It would also reduce waiting time - win win. I do not really understand why this is a real issue since we see some bigger shit coins work mostly ok with less time.... Hmmm |
|
|
|
ideally we shouldnt have to "trust" any group of developers. This is supposed to be decentralized and trustless.
There's no need to trust when the code is open source. Just look at the code of Core, then look at what BU offers, you'll see how BU is objectively shit and can't get anything done without relying on Core's hard work. ETH, DASH, ... is even more shit. But ? Open your eyes - hard work is not all you might need... |
|
|
|
Well, maybe Ciphera is not really Eric Lombrozo?
But his statements couldn't be more clear.
don't you think you're going a little far off the deep end with this? i don't get how anyone could treat this article as anything other than squealing. if they have a point to make then make it in a dignified manner. if they believe core is out to 'get them' then be better people and rise above it. Yes, you have to ask them "really? this?". There is a concentrated effort to FUD Core, divide the community and then conquer. It began with XT vs. QT. That is where the Core vs. the big blockers argument started. I am all for competition but not the dirty tricks being done from both sides. Who next to Bullockstream is more responsible for 'divide the community and then conquer' ?? |
|
|
|
ideally we shouldnt have to "trust" any group of developers. This is supposed to be decentralized and trustless.
Wise words. You should rather trust what you see. I see (next to lots of FUD) reactions like bug was fixed very quickly - more nodes up now than before. I still hope that since we have 2 groups in hard competition they will help each other in the end - and I don't mind which way they do (hacking, helping, ...) - finally we will all benefit. |
|
|
|
'Core' has failed to deliver ...
Core has delivered. If you like it or not is a different topic. Bitcoin and its code is too important to be just 'liked or disliked' by a single individual. I liked the fact that they delivered - made decisions and got sth out - hard task!! I'm agnostic to things that work but are not full in line what I would do. I only see that we have gotten nothing like German beer we all would agree that we like  What did you order, banana split ? I still hope / like we can rather repair than throw away. |
|
|
|
Miners Pools ... play it well as we see.
SPV Mining is the opposite of playing well! We can get lost in any detail. The message to the outer world is claer: Bitcoin (as Satoshi designed) is rekt in any case if nobody steps back from own prios - even with 1MB and no SW (reduced to bank like store of value and infinit tx costs). 'Core' has failed to deliver / merge the 'no-brainer' that fits to all. Others take over. Disruption is hard to take if it hits you. |
|
|
|
It's a natural resistance against Chinese coup d'état. No compromise should be made in such situation, no sane person would make a deal with terrorists.
It's a natural resistance from (Chinese) miners against blockstream terrorists. Just two ways of view. (Hard for many here to see both, since most just are simple users and don't care about miners investments) BTW: Miners do safe the blockchain and your bitcoins. They play it well as we see. |
|
|
|
Hello,
I have only a little knowledge about these scaling solutions so I want to ask if it's possible to somewhat combine these two solutions. Like, change the transaction protocol according to SegWit to allow off-chain solutions (Lighting Network) while letting the miners choose a size of the block. Is this possible?
Miners can and already and do set the size of the block with soft limits , users set the upper end of the hard limit though . Giving miners control of the blocksize would centralize mining , set a bad precedent that the miners control validation rules and not economic users, and not account for externalities like the cost of nodes on processing the blocks leading to node drop off and centralization. Essentially creating paypal 2.0 with a mining cartel , where everyone eventually is forced to trust third parties instead of validating their own txs. So , no thank you. What is your very balanced counter offer ? SW + 2nd layer where 2nd layer will turn out to be the very same you not want? |
|
|
|
That looks very German - 'wohnen'  |
|
|
|
Good case. Try to SW-sent this (in case SW gets enough hashpower) . Does this get cheaper ? |
|
|
|
|
BU needs more attacks - go for.
BU get's more fixes and has the luxury to run in a real live testnet side by side to core - finally nothing really happend, but BU got stronger... how does SW and the hidden bugs in it?
Bitcoin cannot die that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Still wondering how much time it takes to understand that economically it does not make any sense promoting (also to miners)
infinite scaling in 2nd layers (poor investment needed + bit of code hack, try to earn lot of fees / steel from miners)
AND
limiting miners business to 1MB ( high investment by miners DONE)
All we see is just reactions on this (miners awake and do their analysis) -> a swing back is just natural to that.
Now you need to offer really more to miners or you've lost this battle.
|
|
|
|
Seems like bitcoin core's strategy. Apathy rules. 1mb block is just dandy.
Bitcoin Core has already offered a solution with bigger block, i.e. Segwit. Apparently the market does not want a block size increase or pool owners (e.g. Jihan) are being severely lobbied into doing the opposite. Stupid comments like this don't help with a compromise. Apparently someone lacks a brain, and it ain't neither Searing nor I. Segwit is the compromise. And it's sold now as the compromise coin. Choose between bad (do nothing) and evil (HF) .... I really wonder who should go long that - just B Banks ? |
|
|
|
I wish I knew what the answer was, I just know the answer is not centralized mining with BU.
How does BU make mining more centralized in your view? Mining is already centralizing in China. BU gives miners more power over Bitcoin. If they succeed, China will control the production of mining equipment, the actual "mining" securing of the network, and the development of Bitcoin. Centralization at its finest. A restrictive communist country will control our beloved Bitcoin. That should scare the hell out of everyone. Why do I have to spell this out for you, OPEN your eyes! If you're not a paid shill or mentally challenged, how can you support BU? What choice we have ? SW ? Hacked into code and funny SF initiated ? Sold with heavy censorship and self moderated scream & fear threads? How could you sell this to any miners in one go with clear limits to their business but infinite scaling in 2 nd layer ? Not clever. Now you wonder that it gets not enough hashpower ? There are reasons for this clusterf@ck and some people in charge messed it up - not the miners, not Ver. They came after the mess was clear . So your solution is to just give up and give in to the Chinese control of Bitcoin? Yes I give what I can afford to give and sometimes even more. This world needs more givers than takers and we are fine.  |
|
|
|
The next questions are:
1) What exactly decides whether it goes up 10% or down?
2) Why that specific period? I think that once per retarget is too frequent; maybe once per month is better. Someone else may have more input on that.
D'accord to your second proposal, 2016 blocks may be a too small period. Yes, there should be more input from advanced users. If this discussion here gets stalled, a new thread about the modified proposal in the Development/Technical Discussion section would be the way to go, I think - then I would also contact the autors (Garzik, Upal, DooMAD). What makes this proposel different from BU if the max block size is defined in specific 'quant' sized jumps nodes / miners could vote for ? Such a quant could have the size of 0.2MB and would be added ( or removed ) if the voting reaches some 75% agreement. The (auto) voting could be done in same manner as the difficulty is adjusted over a block number period. |
|
|
|
I wish I knew what the answer was, I just know the answer is not centralized mining with BU.
How does BU make mining more centralized in your view? Mining is already centralizing in China. BU gives miners more power over Bitcoin. If they succeed, China will control the production of mining equipment, the actual "mining" securing of the network, and the development of Bitcoin. Centralization at its finest. A restrictive communist country will control our beloved Bitcoin. That should scare the hell out of everyone. Why do I have to spell this out for you, OPEN your eyes! If you're not a paid shill or mentally challenged, how can you support BU? What choice we have ? SW ? Hacked into code and funny SF initiated ? Sold with heavy censorship and self moderated scream & fear threads? How could you sell this to any miners in one go with clear limits to their business but infinite scaling in 2 nd layer ? Not clever. Now you wonder that it gets not enough hashpower ? There are reasons for this clusterf@ck and some people in charge messed it up - not the miners, not Ver. They came after the mess was clear . |
|
|
|
When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it
only the "markets" that are VC funded by DGC, http://dcg.co/portfolio/which are in blockstreams pocket hence why BTCC is the loudest pool supporting segwit..and flagged segwit support within minutes of the october start, rather than take the time to assess things first... oh look DCG->BTCC And lots of their miners already moved out - the % of BTCC has dropped sharply |
|
|
|
BU is more voted, what does this tell you?
That it's not a vote, lol When a proposal wins a vote, it becomes dominant. BUcoin won't survive the markets, the vast majority of commercial and private players actually using Bitcoin are publicly rejecting it If only C rated Banks reject I'm fine with such poor predictions.... |
|
|
|
Keep in mind that ironically, almost no miner (besides Bitcoin.com) is actually running BU. They are just signalling it.  There are also substantial performance improvements in core 0.13 and 0.14 that haven't made their way into the BU code so miners would lose all those benefits by abandoning the core client. ... and still : Not voting for SW because of all that nice little core goodies -> BU is more voted, what does this tell you? |
|
|
|
I will agree that the governance decision should be made more transparent but both miners and development team are guilty of this
we need to return to the mindset that we do not need a governance of DEVS nodes are the boss. pools are the secretary devs are the workers And now put some numbers behind, how much their investments / risks really are and how much they have so say because of that ? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
