The drop in difficulty won't matter if you see what I'm saying, if the traffic is redirected then miners lose the incentive of fees (the thing that's designed to keep btc alive after block rewards are out) only larger farms and pools can absorb the loss
The fees should be under 10% of the Block Reward. They are way to high right now. Until the fees become crucial for miners it will take a couple of years. As a miner you can't just quit without losing money in the process. Also miners a re willing to make a loss for some time in order to get rid of the competition, so they can make more profits in the future. If miners go and the hashrate drop it will attract new miners that want to take a shot a mining. The expectation management is fully rekt now thanks to the brain washing by blockstream : WE NEED FEES To revert this shit is the hardest issue, not the tech. No, fees are still not needed now. There is still enough capacity for many months and gives time for new ideas to fix scaling dynamically. |
|
|
|
There is a growing body of literature that disputes the inflationary (and big-bang) models, I'm happy to report. I find it interesting that nash brings up the notion of longitudinal (compression) waves in electricity and gravity... something that tesla also reported. Sadly, I can't really follow the math myself. seems we are getting off topic. though. sorry. Discussing such things at a time when dark matter is not understood but is responible for vast majority of all energy does not make sense at all. Look for math and try to get over Platons Cave issue. |
|
|
|
|
Given that dev fraction ( blockstream core) solution SW looks rejected by miner fraction, compromise should be proposed from second fraction, not first one again.
And we might need a third, merchants?, to moderate in case.
|
|
|
|
How many dimensions are needed to discribe the universe best? 4? 12? Our math is nice. But never sufficient. Who is a moron ? 1, 2, x? one of us has read shinichi mochizuki's works on interuniversal geometry. Again, you show strong tendency to restrict things down to what you are able to grasp and try to make things ideal (standard task of a scientist) So you miss things out of this (your) box and might neglegt all the others on similar / paralell tracks. We are not here to find the truth. The rails to it are not even clear. The key might be found in math only. |
|
|
|
How many dimensions are needed to discribe the universe best? 4? 12? Our math is nice. But never sufficient. Who is a moron ? 1, 2, x? |
|
|
|
so you're saying the basic idea of emergent consensus that the core devs are pretending to be so freaked out about and claiming is so 'radically different' has actually been done already...
emergent consensus (BU specific proposal of dynamics) has not been around since day one because BU hasnt been around since day one. then again core hasnt been around since 2009 either. (it was satoshi-qt prior to 2013) but the whole thing about "excessive blocks"(BU specific proposal) is about making policy.h more important as the lower threshold and the "FLAGGER", while making it more automatically moveable.. rather than manually movable. in the past 2013 sipa and core devs had to manually move the policy.h and so did pools.. though nodes were not really using policy.h as the node validation of block rule. pools were reliant on it. infact early clients had 3 layers protocol =32mb consensus=1mb policy <500kb in the early days So chilled with laudbankbraking words: BU is much more Satoshi consensus like than anything else (= hacked agenda stuff ) we ve seen before?  |
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if some of franky1's concerns are true, but cannot confirm this as it is way beyond my technical knowledge and expertise in this area.
FYI, franky has been having his "concerns" for 3 years and counting. Do you know what happened to the issues that Franky used to complain about? He no longer complains. Because they were demonstrated to be unproductive trolling. When he finds they don't work, he simply switches to newer trolling strategies instead. If you'd believed anything Franky had stated or predicted, Bitcoin would be hugely unsuccessful cryptocurrency with all the users abandoning it in fear and frustration. But it keeps becoming more popular, and more successful. I was hear 3 years ago (may have been posting as FunkyRes) and I recall Franky's posts, hard to forget his awesome avatar. They don't seem that different now to me. Well there is a difference, I no longer am gunho about SegWit. I wanted SegWit because I like the idea of micro-payments but I have since come to realize that micro-payments isn't what segwit is about and can be achieved by simply increasing the block size, which is the KISS solution to the problem. SegWit has a different agenda altogether and I do not believe it is in our best interests. It adds incredible complexity to bitcoin while taking control for the transactions outside the blockchain (via lightening) and I can not condone that. I hope you are not supporting BU while claiming segwit adds "incredible complexity". The only thing complex here is the ridiculous "emerging consensus" BU approach. Actually it's not that complex, it's pretty simple: BU doesn't work. Segwit does, it has been tested to hell and back. Let's get segwit already you pricks. Neither has been tested on the main net. Segwit is much more complicated which is why it required so much testing even on test net. BU is by comparison a much simpler change. Hehe - yes and: Just in case SW would be the better long term solution , nobody is really able to grasp it fully AND is able to convince crowds of the potential or things are fractioned / censored endless by different forum policies. We only see stupid fan boy chilling here - that's it. Sorry - just in case... |
|
|
|
Given the 21Mio are fix (first scarcity)
And the TX number limit / block size stays fix ( 1MB = second scarcity)
All bitcoins on addresses where bitcoin amount <= TX fee stuck because fees are too high
I ve seen somewhere that this might be 50% already?
This means that more or less only big junks of bitcoin are worth moving to be sold ( to exchanges ), initial from miners but also from other sellers.
Or have just stay at (save) exchanges with high security (NY BitLicence!) = high cost
But if you want to really own them and save them you should move to cold wallets (costs).
-> Buying / securing bitcoins will be harder / more expensive in the future - so price must go up and weak hands or small amount holders will be fully kicked out of this market!
-> Transfer of bitcoins may be done finally from these strong hands holders (bank + IOU - style / LN style) only!
To avoid this kind of end game, only REAL on chain scaling is needed.
Any ideas?
We don't know how many of those addresses are all that a wallet contains. What I mean is, I've got a bunch of addresses that have tiny amounts of bitcoin, usually from change after making a transaction. Roger Ver could point at them saying how this is a disaster, but I can easily send them together with other addresses with coin control. Of course if some noobs got small amounts thanks to faucets etc, I don't see how they are going to move those amounts since the fees are higher than what they have. I honestly don't see a solution that does not involve LN. No amount of onchain scaling will ever amount to making micro transactions viable at any non-marginal levels of usage. For those tiny micro amounts I also hope that some 2nd layer could solve or some aggregation could be provided. But I've not seen any proper analysis about the fractioning in this matter and if it could help at all, since you need same 'channels' for netting and if you have only a sinlge fraction - you can forget your amount - for ever ? How much BTC does this reduce the 21 Mio ? - > It is clearly new scarcity dimension next to loosing your private key... |
|
|
|
|
Given the 21Mio are fix (first scarcity)
And the TX number limit / block size stays fix ( 1MB = second scarcity)
All bitcoins on addresses where bitcoin amount <= TX fee stuck because fees are too high
I ve seen somewhere that this might be 50% already?
This means that more or less only big junks of bitcoin are worth moving to be sold ( to exchanges ), initial from miners but also from other sellers.
Or have just stay at (save) exchanges with high security (NY BitLicence!) = high cost
But if you want to really own them and save them you should move to cold wallets (costs).
-> Buying / securing bitcoins will be harder / more expensive in the future - so price must go up and weak hands or small amount holders will be fully kicked out of this market!
-> Transfer of bitcoins may be done finally from these strong hands holders (bank + IOU - style / LN style) only!
To avoid this kind of end game, only REAL on chain scaling is needed.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
You should break out the CarltonDance gif instead, as that's literally what I was actually doing Can you explain, lo-kicker, how the Unlimited pool will pay out 110% of anything when their blocks keep getting rejected? These people are going to have one nasty electricy bill to pay They will just add some more electricity costs (minor) soon running enough nodes... easy done. |
|
|
|
I see one problem. Until the UTXO is associated with one of Bobs addresses, meaning that he has the Bitcoin in one of his address and this is confirmed in the ledger, all he has is a very strong IOU. I would expect that in this forum you will have a hard time selling the idea of an IOU as a real Bitcoin transaction.
The Lightning Network is a ledger in it's own right, as are all promissory note systems. The difference in Lightning's system of promissory notes is that the promissory notes cannot be counterfeited, the on-chain transaction needed to open the channel ensures that. I|m totally fine with the LN part. What bugs me is the signed massage part. A signed and not propagated massage is less safe than a confirmed transaction. Whether using LN or Bitcoin a signed massage just like an unconfirmed transaction is a promise, a strong one, but none the less just a promise. If i sell my house or something of substantial value i want to see at least one confirmation before i feel confident to own the money. Not all transactions get in the ledger. I guess what i'm saying is that just being a Bitcoin transaction has no value. Being in the blockchain does. Maybe not all will agree, but i fairly certain to not be alone with this opinion. ^^^ And I fully miss any disclaimer of LN sales people otherwise we will charge them all the losses, just in case... On chain settlement is your friend. All second layer trash banks could do way better and more secure. |
|
|
|
In order to turn bitcoin into ideal money...
Bitcoin cannot be ideal money, its not a brain block you haven't read the thread, I have chewed people out over and over and over and over and over for this. Bitcoin is deflationary. It increases in value over time. Increasing in value means its not stable. Increasing in value means ITS NOT STABLE. Bitcoin is not stable in value, it never will be. Ideal Money is stable in value, bitcoin is not stable in value its deflationary. I don't know how to be more clear. But you have to freeze bitcoin development in order to create a stable metric, so it can become ideal money. Maybe I've misread the thread as some of it appears to be contradictory. Maybe that is my lack of knowledge or maybe you are failing to clearly illustrate your point. Yoooo you have to freeeeze. All At 0 Klevin we have ideal state - nothing moves. Hm academic?! For science and all theories (describing parts of our real nature) - freeze is ideal - nice. You have not to change your theory once scientists captured that little thing of our nature (into what language ? Pure Math ? Code ? - everything else is NOT strict and you can dispute for ever) . Sadly Very sadly THERE IS a GAP (HUUUUGE) to apply this little frozen nice ideal theory into REAL life. This thread here is all about to understand this GAP - Ideal science brains are soo frozen! (With some heat they are running out of capacity - set to 1MB mostly) Still Popcorn... |
|
|
|
Don't be ridiculous. Miners have their own brains and make their own independent decisions. They don't have to and do not follow orders from any 'Americans'.
... and we watch: They are using their brains due to their mega investments. Hacking in 1000s of SW code that mostly give them some 2 MB (1 line) and the real fear losing fees to 2nd layers on top of SW - than for ever (who really believes in a HF LATER ?) - bad incentive... And it's funny how you see a great development of the small piece of the bitcoin software, but you fail to notice a huge development of the mining infrastructure. If you think that what gave bitcoins the value was the core software advancing to version 0.14.x, and not the gigawatts of power burned inside the mining hardware, then you sir obviously know nothing about what the bitcoin phenomenon is, and you are the last who should have a vote on deciding about it's future. And conveniently, you are the last...  You are rare here - but brain is. |
|
|
|
If neither happens, bitcoin core is just fine with the current block size. They likely
would never have moved to even seg witness yet without the push for bigger blocks
Their viewpoint is 1mb blocks are just dandy, because btc is mainly a store of value
and currency is not relevant as long as price goes up.
Thus this impasse will likely go on for years as long as BTC price rises and continues to
act as bitcoin core assumes, as store of value, that continues to rise steadily.
Impasse/stalemate
So the end game of that scenario is like: BTC price is e.g. 2Mio $ TX fee e.g. 1000$ With that only big guys will transfer = banks and funds, or better hodl in their core funds. We see it today, with Vontobel BTC tracker it is cheaper to transfer the tracker using e.g. SWIFT So we need middle men and can not own BTC any more but have to buy IOU to participate in this store of value. Do you think thats the future? |
|
|
|
Segwit & LN are a Scam by BTC Core to move all of the transactions OFFCHAIN, where they can dominate the fee system. Offchain has never been proven secure as their are many techniques that can outwait their so called time locks and allow BTC to be stolen from the actual onchain system. Plus 51% of the Miners could easily rewrite 1 transaction in a block and counterfeit all of the LN funds they wished. A Hard fork to BTC Unlimited would fix the problem for good as soon as it was implemented. Core knows this and that is why they do nothing , hoping they can force/trick the community in segwit activation. Straight up Power Grap by BTC Core, cause they think the community is dumb enough to fall for their lies. BTC core should be replaced with a group of Devs that actually want BTC to succeed more than their 3rd Party Offchain Banking System know as LN.   it's wrong to think that core have any influence here, the miners decide in the end and the miner don't want unlimited for various reaosn with unlimited the block reward would be so high that you can fill it with more spam than today, that is already a problem, for me the only solution is a dynamic block that actually work and adjust the size based on the demand on the TX per second If the 'spam' argument would hold, why we ve not seen those attacks the years ago? The 1MB was not really attacket. And artificial spamming costs money and might lead to a drop in btc price. Not a good incentive for team players. |
|
|
|
|
Page 15. Running out of popcorn a bit ....
|
|
|
|
|
User is counted by full node count?
So what speaks against that high capitalized miners just buy some cheap full nodes to vote for their intersts if needed?
|
|
|
|
How can ideal money be not for all ?
What is 'ideal' if it is rather ideal for ( central) banks ? (ideal for a very special group)
Ideal money is money for the poor, here we have biggest gaps to fill.
because the definition for deal we are using is 'stable in value of long periods of time'. Your definition sucks and doesn't do anything. Our definition stops governments and banks from screwing over the people. Didn't you read the paper? bitcoin is not for the peoples daily use, its a finger trap for the meta-players. I see. I can help you out. Go look up R3CEV or hyperledger or intra blockchain. This is your friend. They can just copy bitcoin and run it inside thier meta world, as idially as you wish. bingo |
|
|
|
What did Satoshi lie about?
He made you believe bitcoin is for the peoples. Its not. Its for the metaplayers, the big banks. How can ideal money be not for all ? What is 'ideal' if it is rather ideal for ( central) banks ? (ideal for a very special group) Ideal money is money for the poor, here we have biggest gaps to fill. |
|
|
|
Haha too good. And you are not even close to achieve anything. So what does it teach to you know?
You read. I already know.
You are making a fool out of yourself, in a thread in which the educated people are started to realize that I am speaking intelligibly. I am not unintelligible because YOU can't understand us. Theymos, I am calling this person an idiot. DUCY? Yeah, I m human, sorry Im a fool. But you need help. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
