We'll have a blocksize increase after segwit. It's not Core's fault that miners are fucking stupid and are not signaling for segwit as soon as possible. Segwit is needed before we increase the blocksize.
Segwit provides a blocksize increase. Putting that aside, I would welcome a properly written HF proposal that builds upon Segwit. However, I would not be willing to accept something that reduces the block size limit (as proposed recently by luke-jr). If you want a block size increase for all ( I suppose ) , you do not need compli seg wit (might work for a few). Agreed (?), we need this increase - so let's do this first ... yes HF is needed to remove artificial legacy code of 1MB anyway. If seg wit is part of this HF - I m fine. |
|
|
|
Even if I loved SegWit technically... That ain't gonna happen. We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.
Neither is that. Core will be ousted by design. You mean they have overengineered a bit and lost some traction? Skipped the marketing and some soft skills?  |
|
|
|
And the community / fellowship was forked after - for good! |
|
|
|
"No, I've not entertained Franky's ramblings for months now. He's still pretty obsessed with me though, he likes referring to me by my initials for some bizarre reason too. Weirdo, frankly. " yet CB is the one obsessed with me.  Dont mind, we need some Core Bankers here or it gets boring too much :-) |
|
|
|
And you don't see a problem with that? Isn't bitcoin supposed to be more open than that?
Don't get it twisted, what im saying with Core calling the shoots means that they are still the number 1 coders doing all the hard work. Most BU people are trolls and the software is not as good in any case. I'm sad to say that I now support and run BU. Core doesn't call the shots anymore because their last few releases aren't being adopted. Core IS the number one dev team by miles, but they are stubbornly clinging to the poorly supported, overcomplicated, and likely failed Segwit solution, and they are not listening to the miners or the critics. Running BU is the only way to communicate to them that Segwit needs to go away. Meantime, Ver and his team will gain more steam with BU because Core has buried their heads in the sand. Likely we'll be at a deadlock for 6 months+. I think when BU passes Segwit hashrate we might see some debate or compromise proposals. I've already heard talk of merging Segwit with larger block support. Miners currently benefit from small blocks because fees keep climbing. Anyone who has waited 2 days for their transaction to confirm knows the horrible feeling that is ironically similar to getting your Paypal account banned. At some point when BTC fees are too high and/or transaction times are unacceptably high, more people will switch to an altcoin like Monero, which has better anonimity than Bitcoin anyway. Bitcoin is running on inertia with name recognition, exchange support, and Wall Street money. I would be truly saddened if Bitcoin faded into obscurity due to this conflict. So you think Andreas Antonopulos is wrong? (someone who is always neutral and is learning about bitcoin stuff 24/7) Get real, the only thing not tested here and proven to fail is BU. If BU gets anywhere notably we are fucked. Segwit is safe compared to BU. BU depends on Core's hard work, if Core stopped updating their software, BU wouldn't have anywhere to rip off and copy and paste code from, it would be the end. Here is Andreas explaining why segwit is the way to go: https://medium.com/segwit-co/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.yrq6jipqgHaving multiple dev teams wroking on scaling is a luxury and good. I'd like to see that those teams check each others code by reviews / 'pair programming' in a help like manner, based on healthy competition. I've seen even Adam Back starting such a thing on the tech thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.0That's the way we all can win. |
|
|
|
I find it really, really frustrating that you have a room full of otherwise hyperintelligent people, who were told in very clear terms by the Chinese miners what those miners want about a year ago (a hardfork increasing the max blocksize limit for the present type of transactions to at least 2 megabytes), and today, you have the same people asking in frustration why Chinese miners are not adopting segwit when those miners said in bright blinking cleartext a year ago what it is they want, and it is not segwit.
Do you think we must be controlled by Chinese miners? I would prefer decentralization .... pools dont have power because they need node acceptance. .... I always wonder about this. Running some xxx nodes should be a fraction of costs for pools. If so it should still be easier for pools to achieve majority for some change. Further I guess pools might fear LN cause here they only get a fraction of the fees. Could they start blocking those LN-tx ? |
|
|
|
|
The node distribution is also key here. Miners will look if their blocks are accepted & verified.
|
|
|
|
|
As seen as an adult from above - you can solve this only with a proper compromise and with re-union of the community.
|
|
|
|
Hey guys,
Has anyone had trouble with Bitalo? I set up an account several years ago and had a modest amount of BTC in two wallets, one primary, one passthrough. They changed their website around last year and I haven’t been able to move funds since. Initially I could log in but received error messages. After a frustratingly unproductive dialog with them I am no longer even able to log in, claiming my email does not exist.
Further discussions with their support have been unproductive, then they lose interest.
So, is bitalo incompetent or is it an elaborate scam?
Thanks
I would not be suprised (scam) since they came partly from bitmarket.eu scam some years ago.... |
|
|
|
things would change if..
the big 12 exchanges.
and also the merchant tools (bitpay/coinbase) both started pushing for another currency.
EG the 300,000 merchants accepting bitcoin, started accepting another coin and not advertising bitcoin acceptance.
'value' in bitcoin would decline
Guess what ? Exactly matches plans of Bilderberg group :-) |
|
|
|
und mal wieder Tagelange Seitwärtsbewegung beim Bitcoin und anschliessend der Ausbruch nach Oben  Ich kann mich nich an eine einzige Stituation erinner, in der es anders kam. Fällt euch eine ein? Ja, ich kann mich an mindestens eine erinnern, allerdings aus grauer Vorzeit (2013). Nämlich die im Mai/Juni 2013, bei der der Kurs ca. 3 Wochen bei 120-130 (mit manchmal kleinen Dips auf ~110) herumgurkte und irgendwann sogar etwas hochging. Allerdings wurde bei diesem Ausbruchsversuch eine wichtige Marke aus der (damaligen) Vergangenheit verfehlt und es ging noch mal runter, sogar nochmal deutlich unter 100. Was dann kam, wissen aber wohl alle hier siehe hier: http://www.bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg60zczsg2013-05-01zeg2013-07-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvProfis kaufen immer .. |
|
|
|
I think a major point is being missed. Litecoin does Not Need segwit or LN, it already has 4X the OnChain transaction capacity of BTC.Litecoin has no use for LN , because Litecoin is technically superior to BTC.  Lower price, Lower fees, Faster Transfers, 4X the Transactions capacity FYI: Don't Bet on it!  BETTER TECH CAN'T KILL BITCOIN!
So as we all know for sure: The best testnet is PRODUCTION. Only valuable reason to use Litecoin here is to find out about bugs and if it really works.... Next would be LN on Litecoin - just for fun. I'd like to see BU there as well ... |
|
|
|
|
Nice shill parade.
BU code seems to be recognized.
And it has a luxury issue: It's been used.
And yes it's code.
And yes, code has bugs
All begining is hard.
And yes bitcoin is strong and will stay.
|
|
|
|
Die Diskussionen der letzten 1-2 Jahre haben aber auch ihre guten Seiten. Immerhin wurde nun unbeabsichtigter Weise nachgewiesen, dass Bitcoin inzwischen tatsächlich die wichtigste Definition von "Geld" erfüllt. Geld verdirbt den Charakter! haha Ja, und: "beim Geld hört die Freundschaft auf" ist auch in arbeit wie's scheint. bestätigt! Hehe, und stinken tut bitcoin auch nicht. |
|
|
|
Wenn ich hier so mit lese, frage ich mich, warum sollte Bitcoin zu einer Art GOLD  werden? An wen denkt ihr dabei eigentlich, außer an euch selbst? Ihr würdet wunderbar Mitglieder der Bilderberger-Runde abgeben. Ich glaube nicht, dass dies im Sinne Satoshis war. Meine Prognose ist, dass das von Gier zerfressene Hirn den Bitcoin sterben lassen wird. Wann genau, weiß ich nicht. Jeder darf hier sein Senf dazu geben und alles hinterfragen. Gibt es eigentlich einen Bilderbergtalk.org schon? |
|
|
|
Ja hab ich gestern schon gepostet ... Grmbl... Ich lese doch eigentlich immer alles hier, schon seit 2011.... Mea culpa |
|
|
|
because bitcoin will fail in the real world
bitcoin is associate with scam to the general public
...so was the internet in the beginning. so what? |
|
|
|
Das grosse Problem, das ich sehe, ist, dass niemand von der small Block Fraktion wirklich von und mit bitcoin lebt, also z.B. wesentlich nur in bitcoin bezahlt werden und auch selber bezahlen. Wäre dies so, dann hätten wir / sie längst die Skalierung gelöst. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
