Bitcoin Forum
November 18, 2017, 12:01:28 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ...  (Read 59952 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 26, 2015, 10:58:06 PM
 #481

Quote from: tcbcof date=1440552974
With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money.

Personally I have no problem with Blockstream or their supposed innovation. I would welcome them with open arms. However bitcoin has a problem right now in terms of transaction delays and Blockstream is nowhere to be seen!

When is this great innovation coming? How much longer should bitcoiners wait for a solution to end these spam attacks and unnecessary transaction delays? Don't tell me shit about paying higher miners' fees as I started off in the faucet world like 50% of all newbies involved in Bitcoin today.

How is Blockstream going to facilitate an ever expanding list of faucets, PTCs, GPTs, HYIPS and Bit-Casinos?
These services are here to stay and they need a solution right now as transaction delays are greatly inconveniencing members of such services.

This is why we need to implement a bigger block-size limit in Core right now until Blockstream comes aboard to "save us" with their great innovation. If this isn't going to happen, then we need to go to XT who are actually providing that solution right now.

All I have to say is "Go Big or Get The Fuck Out!"

The developers at Blockstream have been busy actually scaling Bitcoin by process of making its code more efficient in various ways that doesn't include the lazy bloating solutions of bigger blocks. By the sound of it they have lately turned their focus toward block increase solutions but given that unlike Gavin or Mike they intend to test theirs rigorously it might take longer.

I think Adam wrote on Twitter or Reddit that we should expect significant progress to be presented at the upcoming Scaling Bitcoin workshop in Montreal. I'm talking about revised BIP1xx proposals, potentially a formal proposition of Greg Maxwell's flex cap idea and possibly new alternatives.

This stuff takes times and crying for urgency doesn't help in the process.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
1510963288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510963288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510963288
Reply with quote  #2

1510963288
Report to moderator
1510963288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510963288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510963288
Reply with quote  #2

1510963288
Report to moderator
1510963288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510963288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510963288
Reply with quote  #2

1510963288
Report to moderator
A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1510963288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510963288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510963288
Reply with quote  #2

1510963288
Report to moderator
1510963288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1510963288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1510963288
Reply with quote  #2

1510963288
Report to moderator
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 26, 2015, 11:06:33 PM
 #482

...
One person suggested a different way out of the blocksize debate: cutting the interval between blocks in half to target 5 minutes instead of targeting 10. So you're doubling the effective transaction rate for the current blocksize limit.
...
A long ago discussion regarding reducing block times Smiley
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51504.0

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 26, 2015, 11:19:06 PM
 #483

...
One person suggested a different way out of the blocksize debate: cutting the interval between blocks in half to target 5 minutes instead of targeting 10. So you're doubling the effective transaction rate for the current blocksize limit.
...
A long ago discussion regarding reducing block times Smiley
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=51504.0

Heh, certainly was some time ago. More recently it's been Sergio Damian Lerner who has been pushing for reduced block times. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010012.html

His analysis on "ideal" confirmation times was what led Ethereum to have a ~ 15 second confirmation time.

kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
August 26, 2015, 11:37:21 PM
 #484

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your stupid.
A few things:
1) blocks can be anywhere from a second to well over an hour, so no, your stats are only theoretical expectations.
2) XT being 75% doesn't mean it can't lose - there's a reason why core uses higher than 75% ...
3) 'XT' have stated they will use block markers to force people to stay on XT and not switch to Core, if however, Core is above 50% and gets ahead of XT, everyone on XT will be royally screwed Smiley
4) It only takes one 'XT only' block to be mined to keep everyone using XT off Core

but more importantly, XT wont happen.

Yes my stats are based on averages. The stats are theoretical probabilities, you can throw variance in there as a red herring but it doesn't alter the fact that after an hour there is virtually no chance of core having a longer chain. I think you do understand this, and so you *are* being disingenuous.
Try using some of that stats to show it correctly.
It's not the 'expected' value that's the issue ... it's the probabilities of the unexpected happening.
There was another post somewhere where someone seems to have completely lost the plot trying to do that.
I'll ask ooc if he would be nice enough to provide some valid statistics on the subject Smiley

Quote
I get you don't want bigger blocks,  but its clouding your ability to see the truth.
Then you are a moron.
I have not said that I don't want bigger blocks.
I'm one of the people behind the addition of /BIP100/ in the block header since jgarzik didn't mention anything regarding that.

Quote
How exactly do you *know* XT won't happen? I certainly don't know if it will or it won't.
Well it's already well above 25% (roughly 50%40% now looking at the pools showing it) saying they want BIP100, not XT/BIP101 ... so it would be rather difficult to get another 75% on top of that Tongue
Though I guess your and XT's statistics can find a way to add 50%40% + 75% and get something valid Smiley
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC
... and if you are quick you'll see my pool there at the top showing BIP100 support Smiley

Quote
You talk of centralised control as if core isn't already? This fork is exactly the essence of decentralised. Why are you so afraid of it?
I fear nothing.

Go read BIP100, that is what is called decentralisation.

I've not argued about giving them the right to deceive - decentralisation certainly allows that.
They have that right and seem to be quite successful at deceiving people - case in point.
I'm simply saying that their changes promote centralisation.

Edit: it's close to 40%, not 50%

Pool: https://kano.is Here on Bitcointalk: Forum BTC: 1KanoPb8cKYqNrswjaA8cRDk4FAS9eDMLU
FreeNode IRC: irc.freenode.net channel #kano.is Majority developer of the ckpool code
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with full block verification on all blocks - and NO empty blocks!
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 12:24:35 AM
 #485

As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such.  But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud.

As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example:

Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch.  However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains

Also you are clearly wrong about the blockstream guys too with this quote:
(Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable.  As Napoleon would say...)

They do understand bitcoin more than you will ever do, but the difference between them and Gavin is that they want to use the congestion to their advantage. You are really naive if you think that they don't understand stuff when it comes to bitcoin.

iCEBREAKER is a troll! He and cypherdoc helped HashFast scam 50 Million $ from its customers !
H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 12:39:06 AM
 #486

As a comp sci prof, I don need any excuse to take an interest in computer science projects, and debate them in forums and such.  But I also consider part of my job duties to advise the taxpayers who pay my salary about computer-related risks and scams; and surely you must agree that "scam" and "risk" command very big fonts in the bitcoin word cloud.

As a comp sci prof you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to bitcoin. Here is one example:

Some clever bitcoin hackers may be able to create transactions that are valid on only one chosen branch.  However, most transactions issued by typical users will be executed in both chains

Also you are clearly wrong about the blockstream guys too with this quote:
(Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable.  As Napoleon would say...)

They do understand bitcoin more than you will ever do, but the difference between them and Gavin is that they want to use the congestion to their advantage. You are really naive if you think that they don't understand stuff when it comes to bitcoin.

Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
dooglus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 12:58:11 AM
 #487

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

BIP101 activates *only* if XT has >75% of hashing power.

No, it activates when >75% of the last 1000 blocks *say* they were mined by XT. That can happen with less than 75% of the hash power saying they are running XT, and you also can't assume that just a block was mined by XT just because it says it was. It is quite possible for me to mine blocks saying I'm willing to accept "big blocks" when I'm actually not.

So once a big block is mined then it doesn't matter if core ignores it, because core doesn't have the hash power to be able to orphan XT blocks by producing a longer chain.

From Bitcoin's point of view, XT's "big blocks" don't exist, so the question of whether or not it can orphan them is moot. Core will continue to work on the longest valid chain, and that doesn't include any chain with blocks greater than 1MB in it.

At the point a big block is mined the probability of core being able to produce a longer chain quickly falls to zero.

The longest valid chain accepted by Core *is* the longest valid chain, by definition. If 75% of the hash power wants to mine an incompatible fork of Bitcoin, that doesn't change this fact. But mining is expensive. Miners won't mine Mike's coin once they find they can't cover their expenses by selling them.

In the first 10 minutes there is a 25% chance, in 20 minutes 6% chance and so on... 1.5%, 0.4%,0.1%. After on hour of XT mining with 75% hashpower there is a 0.02% chance that core has a longer chain. Core is dead in an hour.

Litecoin forked from Bitcoin. Its chain grows 4 times faster than Bitcoin's. There's a 0% chance that Bitcoin can catch up with the length of Litecoin's chain. Nobody cares. Core ignores the Litecoin chain in the same way that it will ignore the XTcoin chain once XT's chain becomes incompatible with Bitcoin's.

If XT doesn't have 75% of hashing power then BIP101 doesn't activate. So both XT and core both continue to mine small blocks and nothing changes.

You seem to be repeating yourself. See my first paragraph.

The chart is quite correct.

Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.

So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.

--

If, at that moment, more than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the big-block branch (mined by them) will eventually grow faster than the small-block branch (mined by the rest of the miners).  The split will be permanent and the big-block branch will grow faster.

Why would the split be permanent? Miners are free to switch between chains at any point, and will mine whichever chain gives them the best payouts. If XTcoin is valued significantly below Bitcoin then miners will switch back to mining Bitcoin and the Bitcoin chain will catch and outgrow the XT chain.

If, at that moment, less than 50% of the miners accept big blocks, the small-block branch will eventually grow longer.  Then the big-block miners will stop mining their branch, which will be orphaned, and they will start mining the small-block branch too.  If someone mines another big block, the chain will split again.  This situation will repeat over and over, as long as some miner happens to mine a big block.  There will be a single small-block chain with recurrent big-block side branches that are orphaned sooner or later.

Only from XT's point of view. From a Bitcoin user's point of view those orphaned blocks never existed.

Sane bitcoiners should want the first case to happen

Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?

Blockstream fans who are not totally stupid [...]
Bitcoiners who are stupid, or are into financial sado-masochism [...]

So there are only 3 categories:
* the 'sane' ones who want an 8 GB blocksize limit
* blockstream fans
* stupid and/or BDSM types

How about those who would prefer a more sensible raising of the blocksize limit once consensus has been reached, rather than this ham-fisted 8 GB blocksize limit nonsense?

Just-Dice                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   Play or Invest                 ██             
          ██████████         
      ██████████████████     
  ██████████████████████████ 
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
    ██████████████████████   
        ██████████████       
            ██████           
   1% House Edge
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:16:28 AM
 #488

Sane bitcoiners should want the first case to happen

Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?

He's clearly trolling and applying a twisted "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" logic.  He's been arguing that bitcoin is a scam and predicting his imminent disappearance for almost two years now, it's obvious he thinks that by pushing in favor of XT he's doing a service to his own beliefs/agenda.

For me Mr. Stolfi is the perfect contrarian indicator - it has been for years now.


canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:19:01 AM
 #489

Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you really don't understand. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

BIP101 activates *only* if XT has >75% of hashing power.

No, it activates when >75% of the last 1000 blocks *say* they were mined by XT. That can happen with less than 75% of the hash power saying they are running XT, and you also can't assume that just a block was mined by XT just because it says it was. It is quite possible for me to mine blocks saying I'm willing to accept "big blocks" when I'm actually not.


Only gamblers would run XT marked mining operations without accepting larger blocks. I for one don't believe that a significant amount of hashing power will choose to risk the outcome of a contentious hard fork that they would clearly be responsible for by their deceiptful indication of larger block support. Not a likely scenario IMO.

HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2015, 01:20:49 AM
 #490

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached ... I hope that this will happen soon.

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:22:36 AM
 #491


Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?


1) It's easier to soft fork to a lower blocksize in the future if blocks are "too large" since it only requires miner support.
2) Really - you think that 8GB blocks in 20 years is obviously crazy? 1gbit bandwidth, although not widespread, is currently available today. It seems hardly unreasonable to think that technical advances in two decades are not going to be able to keep up. If we're wrong, refer to #1.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:23:08 AM
 #492

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached ... I hope that this will happen soon.

I can actually tell you right now  Grin Fees will be raised !

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
VirosaGITS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Want to save $? Use Coupon Code VOFF5 at GPUShack


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:23:48 AM
 #493

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Ethereum Mining Calculator - Simple, elegant, mobile-friendly Ethereum Mining Profitability Calculator
gpuShack mining hardware - Your one stop shop for all GPU mining related hardware! Use Coupon Code VOFF5 to save on any order.
ethOS - #ethosdistro on freenode - linux distro that mines Ethereum out-of-the-box.
canth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:26:42 AM
 #494

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Yes, because nobody ever changes their minds. Besides, if you're right then what is there to argue about? Seems like a lot of angst about something that has no chance of happening.

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:29:38 AM
 #495

Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan

Ok, but they still DO understand the congestion! You can't state that some of the core developers don't understand stuff about bitcoin.

iCEBREAKER is a troll! He and cypherdoc helped HashFast scam 50 Million $ from its customers !
H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2015, 01:32:34 AM
 #496

I can actually tell you right now  Grin Fees will be raised !
Yes, I'm sure about this.  Grin
And then you will hear users screaming around because they are paying up to 1$ or more (some thinks that it's ok to pay 20$) to get confirmations.
For some, the confirmation will arrive after hours or days.

What do you think that will happen after this? Do you think that users will continue to use Bitcoin or just one of the other 500 alternatives? (and there are some that are pointing to take the place of Bitcoin)

Less users = higher price?
I think NOT Wink

Some of you have no clue about all of this Roll Eyes (or are in bad faith, maybe you just own other coins ...)

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
VirosaGITS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Want to save $? Use Coupon Code VOFF5 at GPUShack


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:34:29 AM
 #497

The longest chain is what the majority of the network chooses.
If the majority of the network will be on XT or anything else that support BIP101 (or others), than it will be the chain, it will be "the Bitcoin".

We have to see what will happen when the 1MB limit will be reached...

XT isint happening. There's already too much hashpower put toward not accepting XT. So unless XT supporter suddenly buy 75% up from 1% of the total network's hashrate. Its not happening.

This blacklist score being an ip list uploaded by the dev is so shady, there's just no way actual volume of people will support it. Ever.

Yes, because nobody ever changes their minds. Besides, if you're right then what is there to argue about? Seems like a lot of angst about something that has no chance of happening.

Indeed. Nothing to argue about.

I don't think the educated portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list. That is such a massive security flaw, its no wonder BIP100 gained 30 time the support of XT in 1 day.

Of course that's just what i believe. I could be totally wrong and people may decide to purposely vote in a fork that allow a certain person to destroy bitcoin if he desire.

Ethereum Mining Calculator - Simple, elegant, mobile-friendly Ethereum Mining Profitability Calculator
gpuShack mining hardware - Your one stop shop for all GPU mining related hardware! Use Coupon Code VOFF5 to save on any order.
ethOS - #ethosdistro on freenode - linux distro that mines Ethereum out-of-the-box.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:35:16 AM
 #498


Have you read BIP101? It proposes jumping the blocksize limit to 8 MB next year, and then doubling of the blocksize limit every 2 years, for 20 years. That gives us 8192 MB blocks in 21 years. And that's what the sane bitcoiners should want?


1) It's easier to soft fork to a lower blocksize in the future if blocks are "too large" since it only requires miner support.
2) Really - you think that 8GB blocks in 20 years is obviously crazy? 1gbit bandwidth, although not widespread, is currently available today. It seems hardly unreasonable to think that technical advances in two decades are not going to be able to keep up. If we're wrong, refer to #1.

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 27, 2015, 01:37:39 AM
 #499

Wrong. Bigger blocks benefits sidechains which is behind Blockstream's whole business plan

Ok, but they still DO understand the congestion! You can't state that some of the core developers don't understand stuff about bitcoin.

I'm with you on that!

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
HostFat
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2632


I support freedom of choice


View Profile WWW
August 27, 2015, 01:38:22 AM
 #500

portion of the bitcoin community is going to reverse their decision on a fork that allow the devs to upload an IP black list.
There isn't any fork that allow devs to upload any IP black list, you are just parrot that repeat the first word that you hear without know the meaning.

NON DO ASSISTENZA PRIVATA - The Rock Trading (ref): A good exchange / gateway Ripple, with support for multisig, since 2007. 
https://bitcointa.lk: Bitcointalk backup if offline - Bitcoin Foundation Italia - Blog: http://theupwind.blogspot.it
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!