Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 12:38:13 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 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core  (Read 9102 times)
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 02:53:39 PM
 #41

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.


Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
1513039093
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513039093

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513039093
Reply with quote  #2

1513039093
Report to moderator
1513039093
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513039093

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513039093
Reply with quote  #2

1513039093
Report to moderator
1513039093
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513039093

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513039093
Reply with quote  #2

1513039093
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513039093
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513039093

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513039093
Reply with quote  #2

1513039093
Report to moderator
1513039093
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513039093

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513039093
Reply with quote  #2

1513039093
Report to moderator
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


--------------->¿?


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:01:22 PM
 #42

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.


Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 03:04:41 PM
 #43

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.
Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:08:04 PM
 #44

X-POST

How many full nodes does "the industry" run?

How much hashing power do they have behind them?

How many bitcoins do they own?

The industry of Bitcoinfiat companies is the economic minority. Their decision have no incidence within the Bitcoin economy.



"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
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


--------------->¿?


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:08:43 PM
 #45

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.
Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT.

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.

BitcoinNewsMagazine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 994



View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 03:13:47 PM
 #46

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.


Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.

A hard fork to XT is solely at the discretion of bitcoin miners and miners have shown they are opposed to XT and BIP 101 with their Coinbase votes.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 03:14:21 PM
 #47

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do; thus a workable implementation does not take much time. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong.


Update: Slight corrections. Waiting for a reply from someone who is not on ignore.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:17:51 PM
 #48

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you.

Don't listen to what blockthestream is feeding you.

.

███████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
█████████████
██████████████
██████████████
██████████████
██████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
██████████████
███████████████
█████████
███████████████
████████
████████████████████
█████████
██████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████












turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:48:04 PM
 #49

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong.
I didn't really want to go into this discussions since I already had them with you at least 2 months ago.
I took a break from that, so I am not sure, if you have been still arguing all that time. For someone who is discussing this topic for such a long time, the statement "Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work" is just plain stupid. You should be aware, that it is not about changing the code, but also getting it to the nodes/miners, which is not a trivial task, everybody who works in Software Engineering knows that. I might even have pointed that out to you personally in the past.
So, could you explain to me, why you are making such a stupid statement? Are you really just an idiot?
Or maybe in your quest of kissing the core devs asses you just don't care of how stupid your statements are, as long as they show the greatness of you masters? Don't you see, that you lose every credibility with such a statement? Or maybe you are just trying to fool your sig-campaign employers into thinking that you are not just spamming the forum?
This are the only 3 possibilities I can think of.

https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
desired_username
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 867


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:51:29 PM
 #50

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.


Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

I'm not saying that I can predict anything, only my opinion. (mind the I think part)

As for your opinion that miners do not give a shit about users is obviously wrong. Without an userbase/satisfied participants they have no bitcoin mining business.

Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.

Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.

I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .

Mind that I'm open to alternatives, but the keeping of a crippling limit.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
November 04, 2015, 03:57:07 PM
 #51

What is the current status on different proposals for this matter?
I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?
Since nobody answered my question, I guess, that nothing changed in the last 2 months. Just another hate against hate-thread.
You guys are ridiculous, but thanks for the reminder, why I haven't been active ...

No, there is no significant progress. Other lateral progress could include CheckLockVerifyTime opcode has made it's way into version 0.12 of the core client, so the last of the barriers to using Lightning will soon be gone.

So, no substantial progress on the blocksize issue, but progress is being made on scaling solutions. Scaling solutions that are going to maintain mining decentralisation.

Vires in numeris
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 03:57:31 PM
 #52

hopefully this will come to an end in december or january...  Roll Eyes

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 04:17:30 PM
 #53

-snip-
Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.

Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.
Your writing style suggest that your sentences are not connected. Thus the statement from the 3rd row was interpreted differently compared to the 2nd one. Yes, the people with the wealth care about the random peasants. It's always been like that. Roll Eyes I never said that a backlog of transactions has no negative effect. I said that it would not ruin businesses and definitely not quickly.  If someone is willing to sacrifice security because of being cheap enough to include $0.2 (random amount) in fees, then they can go ahead.

I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .
Unlimited blocks -> easy attack vector. With BIP101 blocks could become either too big or too small at any point in time which would cause harm. Have you not watched Montreal?



          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
innocent93
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798



View Profile
November 04, 2015, 04:33:22 PM
 #54

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

         ▄▄▀▀▄▄
     ▄▄▀▀  ▄▄  ▀▀▄▄
 ▄▄▀▀  ▄▄▀▀  ▀▀▄▄  ▀▀▄▄
█  ▄▄▀▀          ▀▀▄▄  █
█ █   ██▄▄     ▄██   █ █
█ █   ▄ ▀▀█▄▄ ▀▀██   █ █
█ █   ███▄ ▀▀██ ██   █ █
█ █   ██      ▀ ██   █ █
█ █   ██        ██   █ █
█  ▀▀▄▄          ▄▄▀▀  █
 ▀▀▄▄  ▀▀▄▄  ▄▄▀▀  ▄▄▀▀
     ▀▀▄▄  ▀▀  ▄▄▀▀
         ▀▀▄▄▀▀
Modex               
SMART CONTRACT MARKETPLACE
██▄▄
████  ██▄▄
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

▀▀██  ████

      ▀▀██
TWITTER          LINKEDIN          SLACK
▬▬▬▬▬    FACEBOOK          TELEGRAM    ▬▬▬▬▬
..DEVELOP  ●  DISTRIBUTE  ●  DEPLOY..
██▄▄
████  ██▄▄
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

▀▀██  ████

      ▀▀██
██▄▄
████  ██▄▄
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████
████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

████  ████

▀▀██  ████

      ▀▀██
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 04:39:13 PM
 #55

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

Bitcoin XT has!

Unfortunately no one gives a f*ck about it  Undecided

"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
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792

Newbie


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 04:45:45 PM
 #56

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

You are wrong.
chrisvl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924

Trainman


View Profile WWW
November 04, 2015, 04:46:44 PM
 #57

Agree Bitcoin XT is the best option,the problem is evident 1mb It is not enough to provide a smooth operation

A smartness bitcoin which will operate as the human brain can easily scale beyond the level of traffic VISA,Trainman pgp
spartacusrex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 610



View Profile
November 04, 2015, 05:20:09 PM
 #58

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 Roll Eyes

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 05:25:23 PM
 #59

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 Roll Eyes


Won't you stop getting your panties in a bunch and wait for responsible adults to weight the proper alternatives and analyse the best decision moving forward?

If you expect Bitcoin to grow exponentially and are afraid blocks are going to get filled up too quick what good is a linear 1mb increase?

By the way I'm pretty sure they are going to come up with a proposal that involves something like 30% growth YOY.

Be patient.

Not tonight dear

"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
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372


--------------->¿?


View Profile
November 04, 2015, 05:27:15 PM
 #60

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 Roll Eyes


Won't you stop getting your panties in a bunch and wait for responsible adults to weight the proper alternatives and analyse the best decision moving forward?

If you expect Bitcoin to grow exponentially and are afraid blocks are going to get filled up too quick what good is a linear 1mb increase?

By the way I'm pretty sure they are going to come up with a proposal that involves something like 30% growth YOY.

Be patient.

Not tonight dear

Waiting forever is irresponsible from a business perspective. End of story.

Enough patience, the deadline is December. Deal with it.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  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!