Old nodes do not relay, display as unconfirmed, or mine segwit transactions. At no point are they cut off from the network in any way. By contrast, your desperately proposed hardforks would force all non-participating systems into a separate network.
But keep on, I enjoy watching you turn red faced as people simply laugh off your constant misinformation.
It's confidence inspiring to be so opposed by the dishonest and the deranged.
lol gmaxwell we both know that you are the one that wants a network split. the majority want true consensus (nodes first, pools second) .. its why pools are holding back from signaling for segwit. they wont make blocks unless the majority of nodes can accept and fully validate segwit. your segwit nodes have already been highlighted as being (YOUR WORDS) 'upstream filters', where they whitelist downstream nodes and ignore blocks made by old nodes you can try stroking sheep all you want. but people can read passed your half answers and word twisting you say Old nodes do not relay, display as unconfirmed, or mine segwit transactions.
you know why, i know why and so do smart people. but it is such a shame your not big enough guy to explain it to your own sheep with honesty. maxwell.. here is a mindblowing experiment for you
make a segwit transactions and get BTCC to mine the transaction into a segwit block.
prove to the network and everyone how 'backward compatible segwit blocks are'.
go on, dare you
afterall its all utopia and nothing can go wrong..hmmm
(note: sarcasm in last sentence)
if you want node confidence and pool confidence.. do it.
Don t mind. He might have the illusion once he got you convinced of SW in soft fogg the entire network will adopt it over midnight...  |
|
|
|
8 Mb is fine for all and the calcs I ve seen
yep 8mb is safe for "raspberry Pi" based min specs. where a 32mb was a old benchtest (normal pc) done years ago where dataloss 'could' start to occur. (protocol limit (above consensus limit(above policy limit))) this is where the debates began in 2015 where random numbers started coming up, like 32mb 16mb 8mb 2mb. late 2015 2mb was the ultimate compromise, just to try and get the ball rolling.. but the blockstream paid devs even back tracked on that ultimate compromise i think what is needed is protocol limit 32mb. hard coded(reviewed every 4 years as technology grows) consensus limit 8mb. soft coded. can be adjusted by nodes, to show what they can cope with(maybe have a speed test algo to autoset upper limit) preference limit start 2mb. which reacts DYNAMICALLY to what the nodes can cope with and supply/demand we should not be thinking of hard coding 2mb, because we are just being spoon fed by devs and needing to debate for years before dev kings decide. it needs to be the nodes that decide because the nodes are paramount not devs A compromise could also look like BU injects SW. They have at least recognized that.... I don t care exactly how, but I predict first movers take it all! |
|
|
|
|
Here comes what I assume a compromis could look like.
Given the fact there was an agreement about 8 Mb is fine for all and the calcs I ve seen for SW might using up to 4 Mb there is space for an increase by 4 MB for the MAX BLock Size upper limit.
I guess there you d get more votes for and majority for tesing ?
And SW allone is already tested ( by devs).
And yes it is a HF, but I assume all would be fine with this since it is a compromis.
|
|
|
|
lauda do you think that dynamic blocksizes are untested?
That's not exactly a dynamic block size and you should know this. Sadly bitcoin is far of having ANY proper testing, integration staging as you know from big style software devs for banking, insurance, industry...
Bitcoin Core has extensive testing and peer review. You can't make statements about "bitcoin is far from having". You're generalizing Bitcoin as an single entity that can be 'tested'. We only have some test net, but this is close to some dev playground.
No. A really needed UAT net is completely missing, where other than devs are doing proper user acceptance testing and these have to be as close as possible done in productive like conditions to find out about bugs or other things that might go wrong after deployment into production.
You can join the testnet at any time, and nightly builds are constantly being provided with the latest changes. Having comprehended this you can get the Problem with SW (tested ?, but complex) and some simple change to the max block limit (could be done by reducing 1 line of code - very nice and very Austrian!)
Changing the block size with current != 1 line of code. As an example, first look at the HF proposal in Bitcoin Classic. With BU this becomes even worse with thousands of lines of code. Sigh You just dont want to get it? Who needs to do UAT testing? Me? Hahhaaaa Miners need to do and in depth, they have Millions at risk. Common youre not that slow. |
|
|
|
Grad gelesen: https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/kommentare/bedeutung-von-kryptowaehrungen-bitcoin-ist-nicht-die-waehrung-der-zukunft-ld.144898Der Autor ist skeptisch und wiederholt die üblichen Argumente gegen Bitcoin als Währung (zu volatil, geringe Akzeptanz), aber wenn man ihm seine Meinung lässt, eigentlich trotzdem ganz gut geschrieben. Bis hier: Eines scheint mir im Übrigen politökonomisch ziemlich klar: Würde ein Anbieter wie Bitcoin tatsächlich einmal eine dominante Stellung als wirkliche Währung erreichen (entgegen meiner Erwartung), so würde es kaum lange dauern, bis er vom Staat übernommen und ähnlich reguliert und kontrolliert würde wie die heutigen Zentralbanken und Zahlungssysteme.
Also wohl wieder mal jemand, der die Crux nicht verstanden hat.... Aber zumindest ein bisschen Presse, mal wieder.  Dem Titel gebe ich völlig recht. Der lässt völlig offen, das bitcoin einfach die Zukunft ist, Währung einzig passt eh nicht. Bitcoin, wie auch das gesamte Internet und deren Protokolle, ist einfach vieldimensionaler und passt einfach überhaupt nicht in ein Schubladendenken von vor 20 Jahren. Aber die Gegen-Argumente werden auch immer schwächer und komdensieren sich auf die Volatilität. Nuja, man kann eben nicht Äpfel mit Birnen vergleichen und die Marktkapitalisierung vergessen. Eine globale Währung hat eben ca faktor 100000 mehr Market cap und ebenso viel mehr Handelsvolumen und flow und,.... Ach vergisses einfach, ihr Schmalspurjournalisten.  Kommt Zeit, kommt Rat. |
|
|
|
Sadly bitcoin is far of having ANY proper testing, integration staging as you know from big style software devs for banking, insurance, industry... We only have some test net, but this is close to some dev playground. A really needed UAT net is completely missing, where other than devs are doing proper user acceptance testing and these have to be as close as possible done in productive like conditions to find out about bugs or other things that might go wrong after deployment into production. Even having this all in place nothing can be as similar as the real world = production and more issues will pop up thats 100% sure (seen in every Windoof release). Having comprehended this you can get the Problem with SW (tested ?, but complex) and some simple change to the max block limit (could be done by reducing 1 line of code - very nice and very Austrian!) We might need both this time to get along and compromise, but we HAVE to move, or others move: https://mobile.twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/830197808573587457You might need to go back to playground and watch what happens when 2 are fighting A third will come and grep all the nice toys. |
|
|
|
Alle sell drücken
zu spät  jetzt buy Marios tips sind Gold Bitcoin wert :-) Korrigiert |
|
|
|
if every 2 month give us 30% then we get Segwit activated in four month from now on...
If your aunt had a dick, she'd be your uncle. But, that isn't going to happen either. Not if she still identified as a woman  . Fucking Americans. lol. If you 'identify' as a tree, are you a tree? No. You are merely a fucking idiot that thinks you are a tree. No From our five four we three are the two only one! |
|
|
|
I still don't get why we won't just revert back to 32 MB blocks, and add segwit for good measure. It would end this pointless disruptive argument.
32 MB blocks were never possible anyway, that was the max message size, not the max blocksize. If you don't get why that was changed, welcome to 2010  Rule: 640K is good for all. |
|
|
|
No. I only try to show how you restrict yourself by not seeing the pure bitcoin protocol - detached from any group or team.
It does not need politics and stupid rules. It needs to be as 'small' and open as possible -> so it can be max distributed.
No, it does need rules. How could any system, of any kind, operate without rules? And that's very close to what BU is: a system where the rules are so easy to change, they might as well not exist. And that's the perfect antithesis of Bitcoin: a system where the rules are so hard to change, that they are practically as strong as the rules of logic or physics. And you think the former is better? Have fun with your Unlimited "money" lol Pls read again: It does not need politics and stupid rules. Pls think Pls get it |
|
|
|
If you define 'automatically' = adjusted by the free market = Austrian economics type
You are with BU
The free market cannot operate if the ownership of enterprises are not respected. You're basically saying that all customers should have a vote on all businesses, and that the businesses must respect the customers wishes. How do the businesses make decisions to differentiate themselves from the others competing in the market, if they don't have the power to make changes to the business they supposedly own? The free market exists in cryptocurrency design already: either you like how Litecoin works, or you like how Dogecoin works, and you make that choice freely. Trying to take control away from those who work on a cryptocoin is the opposite of free competition, the only reason to commandeer Bitcoin and it's network is if your idea can't compete openly. Hence this BU "internal market" bullshit you're all pushing. No. I only try to show how you restrict yourself by not seeing the pure bitcoin protocol - detached from any group or team. It does not need politics and stupid rules. It needs to be as 'small' and open as possible -> so it can be max distributed. |
|
|
|
Da gab es doch noch die NY-BitLicense von diesem Supermario Lawsky, welche 100% Deckung bei Bitcoin vorschrieb?
Gilt glaub nur, wenn der ETF im Staate NY aufgelegt wird? |
|
|
|
I'd like to see a section, where merged features SW + BU is promoted - Here we go!
I wouldn't mind a SW + block size (base) increase. I don't want the "emergent consensus" bullshit though. Great. I understand, you're fine with a HF or could one do this with 'safer' SF ? And what base amount (increase) could you imagine is sufficient? |
|
|
|
The Chinese exchangers were allowed by PBOC to continue their business as long as they abide by the rules and conditions set by PBOC. First is that they should not engage in money-laundering activities and number two they should abide by the laws and policies stated in the AML. Is this the roadmap you are referring to? Correct me if it isnt.
Yes - AML and KNC is inforce now (exchanges) and might hinder also mining pools to let bitcoin be changed into more anonymous fields by any change. Since PBOC needs to be consulted now on any change of bitcoin protocol by the Chinese exchanges any change of the protocol could be in question from now on (miners + exchanges), because it could lead to breaking PBOC's rules. |
|
|
|
Du redest aber nicht über das Risikomanagement der notleidenden rettungsbedürftigen grossen Investmentbanken?! Naja - die 'kleinen' Produkte werden immer gut durchleuchtet, die grossen Fehler passieren woanders. |
|
|
|
Demnach kann sich der Emittent z.B. mit einem Future (also einer Wette) vollständig absichern, ohne jemals auch nur einen Satoshi zu kaufen. Auch der Wettpartner muss nur Fiat- bzw. Giralgeld einbringen. Es steht nichts in dem Prospekt, was einen Bitcoin Handel erzwingen würde. Derivate sind üblicherweise sogar günstiger als der Basiswert und bieten dem Emittenten eine nahezu hundertprozentige Absicherung. Jo - der Hedge ist Sache des Emittenten - das Riskmanagement aber auch. Keine Riskabteilung würde jemals einen solch zusammengabstelten Hedge wie Du den beschreibst erlauben - vergiss es - Regulierung greift hier. Selbst wenn eine Bananenbank mit Gurkenrisk das mal machen sollte, gibt's durch die Unkorrelation fette Verluste für den Emittent - und kaputt. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
