Bitcoin Forum
July 21, 2019, 03:36:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: When will bitcoin reach the top of this bull market (i.e. when will it moon)?
Topped at $13,880 in June - 12 (7.7%)
H2 2019 - 16 (10.3%)
H1 2020 - 29 (18.6%)
H2 2020 - 28 (17.9%)
H1 2021 - 12 (7.7%)
H2 2021 - 31 (19.9%)
H1 2022 - 6 (3.8%)
H2 2022 - 4 (2.6%)
H1 2023 - 0 (0%)
H2 2023 - 3 (1.9%)
2024 or Later - 15 (9.6%)
Total Voters: 156

Pages: « 1 ... 16197 16198 16199 16200 16201 16202 16203 16204 16205 16206 16207 16208 16209 16210 16211 16212 16213 16214 16215 16216 16217 16218 16219 16220 16221 16222 16223 16224 16225 16226 16227 16228 16229 16230 16231 16232 16233 16234 16235 16236 16237 16238 16239 16240 16241 16242 16243 16244 16245 16246 [16247] 16248 16249 16250 16251 16252 16253 16254 16255 16256 16257 16258 16259 16260 16261 16262 16263 16264 16265 16266 16267 16268 16269 16270 16271 16272 16273 16274 16275 16276 16277 16278 16279 16280 16281 16282 16283 16284 16285 16286 16287 16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293 16294 16295 16296 16297 ... 24607 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21293119 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic. (102 posts by 19 users deleted.)
spiderbrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 869
Merit: 1004



View Profile
January 13, 2017, 12:32:09 AM

The Indian government is also confiscating gold taxing holdings of black money, which is making bitcoin more and more popular in India. Any gold that hasn't been taxed gets confiscated taxed if their government can find it.

FTFY

By "black money" do you mean money tainted by contact with our evil banking overlords?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563680197
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563680197

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563680197
Reply with quote  #2

1563680197
Report to moderator
1563680197
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563680197

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563680197
Reply with quote  #2

1563680197
Report to moderator
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1861


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 12:32:24 AM
Last edit: January 13, 2017, 12:46:20 AM by JayJuanGee

Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).

Sounds as if you do not have a large enough float.. whether that is BTC or cash.

I don't usually conduct the trade on the exchange until after I have already locked in the profitable trade on Local Bitcoins or directly... and that is that I have actually either received the bitcoins from the guy or I have received the fiat from the guy.

To do that, you have to have enough of a float that covers the full amount of bitcoins or fiat that you are trading and usually a bit more because of transfer times and other cushion issues that sometimes can get the money or the BTC in their proper locations and set up for the next trade.... that transferring money around can be a bit of a hassle and sometimes cause additional costs - that tend to be lessened, somewhat with having a decent float (and even then, it may be a bit cumbersome to manage with some unexpected costs, here and there)
Correct. It's a fixable problem and the loss today was not that much in the end, but still damn annoying that people just up and go radio silent like that.

It's highly expected that a certain percentage of people are going to flake, and maybe even folks that you have already developed a decent relationship (or a pattern of good business), so having the expectation that a certain number are going to flake would be why you have to wait until you either have the bitcoin's or the fiat in your grubby little hands before taking the next step... on the other hand, sometimes you could take certain preparations or hedge a bit regarding the expectation of an occurrence - but that hedge should not reasonably be 100%.. maybe 20% or some other comfortable amount, which would likely vary from situation to situation.


[edited out}

he's not trying to service the local market, he's trying to buy bitcoins off of it.

it sounds to me like they agree on a price when stamps was bottomed, and then the seller failed to deliver, later today for unknown reasons.


I was still referring to maintaining a personal float in order that he (Ibian) does not have to do the transaction on his end before getting confirmation (and the actual transaction) from folks who have a certain likelihood of flaking. If you do not have enough of a floating amount, then you are running the flake risk - and likely gambling with your own capital - unless you were going to cash out of BTC anyhow, which is not likely when the price has just been correcting downwards for several days and appears to be on the rebound.

osmotic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 12:35:23 AM
Last edit: January 13, 2017, 12:49:28 AM by osmotic

The Indian government is also confiscating gold taxing holdings of black money, which is making bitcoin more and more popular in India. Any gold that hasn't been taxed gets confiscated taxed if their government can find it.

FTFY

By "black money" do you mean money tainted by contact with our evil banking overlords?

Probably gold that's had no tax paid on it. If they have an inheritance tax in India I doubt anyone admits they inherited a shit load of gold to the government. They probably also use it to buy and sell things and don't bother declaring the transactions for tax.
DaRude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1733
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 01:01:52 AM

The big-blockers ...

Ahh those bloody idiots are back  Undecided

I don't know who you are referring to as 'idiots', but we 'big blockers' have been here the whole time, and don't plan on leaving. Deal with it.

Quote
How big will the blocks need to be to "handle an increase in 100 million+ users"  Huh

Do you run a node? Do you ever stream video content? Are you aware that hypothetical 100MB blocks are no more resource intensive than SD video content?

Quote
yeah maths are hard.

Arithmetic ain't hard. It appears, however, that for some, thinking through the implications of the arithmetic calculations are out of their grasp.

Are you seriously trying to imply that 100MB are sustainable? Or just randomly stating propagation bandwidth of one 100MB block while ignoring all other effects on the network for no apparent reason and not trying to sway anyone?
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 01:25:03 AM

Do you run a node? Do you ever stream video content? Are you aware that hypothetical 100MB blocks are no more resource intensive than SD video content?

I do. I uploaded over a terabyte of data to other nodes last month.

Obviously if blocks are bigger, the amount of data users need to share to keep the network running will increase.

I have very expensive, top tier internet from a major ISP that I recently purchased specifically for running a Bitcoin node. I had to gimp my maxconnections with more typical home user speeds or my internet was unusable for other tasks like surfing the web.

do you have 200 peers?

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1003



View Profile
January 13, 2017, 01:44:02 AM

do you have 200 peers?

No. Less than half that.

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.
Genesis1337
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 155
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
January 13, 2017, 01:59:29 AM

Tzupy was right. I couldn't imagine this low. So bottom reached or more down?

Can't be sure. But even if this was the bottom, for about a week we could go sideways, building a triangle that would break, probably up, so no need to rush buying.



It was a good run! Wasn't it?? Cheesy Cheesy


Those suck whale traders that kept buying...  Cheesy   Cheesy  ... Increased my BTCiTcoins by 30% Trololol.. Cheesy Cheesy ... "hai multzani!"





But I'm just gonna hold from now on... no matter what happens. Draw u'r stuff from exchanges and we will see each other again in June - July on the next rally! Cheesy Cheesy



xD
mb300sd
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000

Drunk Posts


View Profile WWW
January 13, 2017, 02:04:17 AM

Just another data point, since my node has been running bmon for almost exactly 1 week. With 512 connections, it's had a throughput of 2.49TB. The router is a VM on the same physical machine and has a total throughput of 72.26TB in the same time.

I think the competition for deploying gigabit fiber is going to outpace the demand for block space, especially if lightning and segwit get activated.
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 02:12:21 AM
Last edit: January 13, 2017, 02:27:06 AM by Killerpotleaf

do you have 200 peers?

No. Less than half that.

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 02:25:37 AM

Just another data point, since my node has been running bmon for almost exactly 1 week. With 512 connections, it's had a throughput of 2.49TB. The router is a VM on the same physical machine and has a total throughput of 72.26TB in the same time.

I think the competition for deploying gigabit fiber is going to outpace the demand for block space, especially if lightning and segwit get activated.

super node!
savetherainforest
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 514


Plant 1xTree for each Satoshi earned!


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 02:30:27 AM

Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).

Sounds as if you do not have a large enough float.. whether that is BTC or cash.

I don't usually conduct the trade on the exchange until after I have already locked in the profitable trade on Local Bitcoins or directly... and that is that I have actually either received the bitcoins from the guy or I have received the fiat from the guy.

To do that, you have to have enough of a float that covers the full amount of bitcoins or fiat that you are trading and usually a bit more because of transfer times and other cushion issues that sometimes can get the money or the BTC in their proper locations and set up for the next trade.... that transferring money around can be a bit of a hassle and sometimes cause additional costs - that tend to be lessened, somewhat with having a decent float (and even then, it may be a bit cumbersome to manage with some unexpected costs, here and there)



I guess he should hurry then! ... But probably he has a week or so before the price goes mental upwards. Cheesy Cheesy
spiderbrain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 869
Merit: 1004



View Profile
January 13, 2017, 02:30:45 AM

do you have 200 peers?

No. Less than half that.

do you feel its cool that some peers come online download 1440blocks do 1 TX and go offline for 10 days , is that what you mean by decentralization?

I don't mind in the slightest. This is why I run a node. I know some people want the advantages of a full node as their wallet but can't keep it up 24/7 because of the demanding requirements.

If a Bitcoiner wants to use a full node as his wallet, I think he should be able to do that with relative ease. But, no, that particular use case has little to do with decentralization. I've been over it before but I think the network should be robust enough to function assuming every government on the planet has banned Bitcoin outright and force the ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin traffic entirely. Because, that's what will happen. Those in control don't want to lose control. Money is the most important thing they currently use to keep themselves in power. Inflation directly feeds the welfare/warfare state.

Once the decentralized global mesh network is up and running (which I think is going to be the most important technological advancement for the future of a free mankind), we can figure out how much data we can share over it and increase up near that barrier.

Bitcoin is, first and foremost, monetary freedom. All decisions should be made in that light and we should err on the side of caution every time.

All transactions do not need to be censorship proof in a world where censorship proof transactions exist.

Oh, this is fire like the old days, keep it up!
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1960
Merit: 1861


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 02:48:01 AM

Today has not been the best day for me. The guy I was gonna trade half a dozen bitcoins with suddenly dropped off the face of the earth, so now I'm stuck with useless fiat instead of cheap coins. Can't get it back on kraken until sometime next week because banks break on weekends (they really need to fix that bug).

Sounds as if you do not have a large enough float.. whether that is BTC or cash.

I don't usually conduct the trade on the exchange until after I have already locked in the profitable trade on Local Bitcoins or directly... and that is that I have actually either received the bitcoins from the guy or I have received the fiat from the guy.

To do that, you have to have enough of a float that covers the full amount of bitcoins or fiat that you are trading and usually a bit more because of transfer times and other cushion issues that sometimes can get the money or the BTC in their proper locations and set up for the next trade.... that transferring money around can be a bit of a hassle and sometimes cause additional costs - that tend to be lessened, somewhat with having a decent float (and even then, it may be a bit cumbersome to manage with some unexpected costs, here and there)






I guess he should hurry then! ... But probably he has a week or so before the price goes mental upwards. Cheesy Cheesy


Even though I sometimes get inklings about the short-term direction of price, I never feel very confident about my inklings until after I see it happen.

Therefore, I would not sell my bitcoins in the expectation to use that money to buy from someone who is 10% or so likely to flake (sure flakiness varies, but it is NOT a non-existent or even a low probable risk).


Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1003



View Profile
January 13, 2017, 04:26:55 AM

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 04:38:29 AM

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection


If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.

Quote
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin.  That's where it will get really ugly.
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 04:40:18 AM

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 04:48:58 AM
Last edit: January 13, 2017, 05:01:12 AM by Killerpotleaf

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection


If you wrap the protocol in SSL and run it on port 443 then it is indifferentiable from HTTPS.

Quote
i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

A hard fork will end the debate over the technical details, but it will start the debate about who gets to be called Bitcoin.  That's where it will get really ugly.

who gets to be called bitcoin is not going to be a hard question to answer...

unless hash rate is spilt like 40/60 ... which is SUPER unlikely since most miners "go with the flow"

IMO most likely it would be like 5-10% hashing power forking off ( at most ), and they will have to hardfork difficulty and a few other minor adjustments to make that minority fork viable, at which point they clearly aren't "bitcoin"...

but in this scenario it becomes unclear if "bitcoin" remains dominant after years of the "digital currency wars"  Cheesy


love your idea of making bitcoin traffic look like any other HTTPS traffic, there you go can't "ban bitcoin traffic" unless you ban https Lol
DaRude
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1733
Merit: 1038


In order to dump coins one must have coins


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 04:56:33 AM

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.

Why not just call it as it is??

Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen
Killerpotleaf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 250


A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards


View Profile
January 13, 2017, 06:12:53 AM

if we assume a government has "banned bitcoin traffic" ( not sure how feasible that is )
then we should limit blocksize such that we can smuggle blocks in and out of that country?
we need to keep blocksize such that it can be carried on some hypothetical "internet de la resistance"

idk... sounds nutty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_packet_inspection

i think you have reason to want small blocks, but you have no good reason to not allow the network of nodes to determine what "small" is.
BU effectively limits block size to whatever the vast majority of nodes consider acceptable, and allows for nodes to continue to protest bigger block while staying synced and not forked.
let it go, you can't impose your view of bitcoin onto everyone else even if you believe "its for there own good"

you should however keep running core if you like the idea of segwit and static blocksize.

I don't know where you get the idea that I want to "impose" anything on anyone since I've been asking big blockers to make a block bigger than 1MB for ages. The two sides of this debate will never see eye to eye. A hard fork is the only solution where both sides end up happy. As soon as BU makes a block bigger than 1MB this debate will end.

the point of the debate is to make that >1MB block with a majority backing, preferably a vast majority.
many poeple are on the fence or just dont care either way.
but i think we're getting close to the day where mostly everyone will have made up there mind either way and bitcoin is forever altered.

Why not just call it as it is??

Think majority can probably agree to a >1MB block...as in a 2MB block. The problem is that's not enough for a BU crowd and really never was. They want their Unlimited block size. Think at the minimum it's misleading to say you just want a >1MB block when in reality you want a whole new system for a "dynamically adjustable blocksize". And that will never happen

what the BU crowd wants is kind of irrelevant to what BU can do for blocksize.
My BU node is set to 1.5MB excessive blocksize
your BU node could be set to 1MB if you like, there a miner that does that.
BU crowd doesn't want Unlimited blocksize, they want Unlimited freedom and choice.

BU provides a way for minner to know what the each node is willing to accept, so that miner can make blocks that the vast majority will accept.

how can you be against this idea?
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1072



View Profile
January 13, 2017, 06:52:47 AM

I can't believe we're back on about block size again. My new compass is $700. I can't die holding bitcoins.
Pages: « 1 ... 16197 16198 16199 16200 16201 16202 16203 16204 16205 16206 16207 16208 16209 16210 16211 16212 16213 16214 16215 16216 16217 16218 16219 16220 16221 16222 16223 16224 16225 16226 16227 16228 16229 16230 16231 16232 16233 16234 16235 16236 16237 16238 16239 16240 16241 16242 16243 16244 16245 16246 [16247] 16248 16249 16250 16251 16252 16253 16254 16255 16256 16257 16258 16259 16260 16261 16262 16263 16264 16265 16266 16267 16268 16269 16270 16271 16272 16273 16274 16275 16276 16277 16278 16279 16280 16281 16282 16283 16284 16285 16286 16287 16288 16289 16290 16291 16292 16293 16294 16295 16296 16297 ... 24607 »
  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!