Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2019, 12:03:55 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Closing BTC Price June 17:
$0 - 2 (1.9%)
<$6,500 - 7 (6.7%)
$6,500-$6,750 - 1 (1%)
$6,751-$7,000 - 2 (1.9%)
$7,001-$7,250 - 3 (2.9%)
$7,251-$7,500 - 6 (5.7%)
$7,501-$7,750 - 4 (3.8%)
$7,751-$8,000 - 12 (11.4%)
$8,001-$8,250 - 13 (12.4%)
$8,251-$8,500 - 6 (5.7%)
$8,501-$8,750 - 6 (5.7%)
$8,751-$9,000 - 11 (10.5%)
$9,001,$9,250 - 9 (8.6%)
$9,251-$9,500 - 6 (5.7%)
>$9,500 - 10 (9.5%)
$20,000 - 7 (6.7%)
Total Voters: 105

Pages: « 1 ... 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 20688 20689 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 [20716] 20717 20718 20719 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 20763 20764 20765 20766 ... 24195 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 21221457 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. (64 posts by 15 users deleted.)
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:16:27 PM

For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.
Stop putting words in my mouth already.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560643435
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560643435

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560643435
Reply with quote  #2

1560643435
Report to moderator
1560643435
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560643435

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560643435
Reply with quote  #2

1560643435
Report to moderator
1560643435
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560643435

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560643435
Reply with quote  #2

1560643435
Report to moderator
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:18:21 PM

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666
Merit: 1211



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:22:02 PM

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bBitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?

Sorry you are right. FTFY
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1820
Merit: 1496



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:24:39 PM

For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.
Stop putting words in my mouth already.

I can't put words in your mouth, because your foot is stuck in there already.

Quit trollin'.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 2172


It'll be over 9000!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:25:33 PM

Ok. I will learn to steal groceries. Let's do this thing. Cool

Are we so poor now?

Damn, this is getting ugly too fast.

 Guys, we don't need to resort to theft; there is food for hodlers:



 ...and less sodium means less blockchain bloat.
Last of the V8s
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 2206


Be a bank.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:26:14 PM

@crandl
Rumors circulating that Facebook buying @coinbase for $18BB and investors euphoric after $8.5BB last round. Crypto experts think @RobinhoodApp a much better buy.for $FB .  #bitcoin #crypto @zerohedge
5:06 PM - 28 Jun 2018

FAKE NEWS
aka 'buy my bags'
infofront
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1716


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:28:17 PM
Merited by Karartma1 (1), Last of the V8s (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:41:16 PM

Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bBitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?

Sorry you are right. FTFY
Is that a yes or no?
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 04:42:53 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
They will.
Gab0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 283
Merit: 127



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:04:46 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it.
Karartma1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1070


Be Revolutionary Or Die Trying


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2018, 05:06:26 PM
Merited by infofront (1)

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
On the same page here man.
What shocked me is that the more the SegWit/LN bounty grows in value the more likely an anyonecanspend attack becomes likely.
Yes, sure as hell you (me) are not a bcash proponent.
But we have to question everything and never take anything for granted, especially when some of the clues are there.
 Roll Eyes

fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:12:20 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.


cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1341


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:13:00 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

I have been following his arguments for years.  He tends to predict doom a lot.  
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:16:38 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.
fluidjax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 739
Merit: 550



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:26:44 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

The millions claim is based on L2 & L3 technologies that can now be developed because of Segwit, I can't convince you of it, beyond pointing to lightning as the first L2 tech, and my belief that developers will create better and more sophisticated L2 & L3 that will eventually scale up to that figure. There is no obvious ceiling, the limit is in the creativity of the solutions.

I don't advocate a block size reduction at the moment, the best trade-off in block size is yet to be determined.





JimboToronto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1254


You're never too old to be young.


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:27:47 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

Hey Jimbo.... when is your cashflow getting lined up in order that you will be able to add to your BTC stash at these "bargain" prices?

within the next month or two?

Waiting for repayment of a $20kCAD family loan. Last week I was told days or a few weeks.

This would be my first multi-coin purchase in many months and would replace the several small sales I was forced to make this year.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1341


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:27:51 PM
Merited by d_eddie (1)

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
Ibian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1181



View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:35:51 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1726


Baby Blue Panties


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:47:45 PM

I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.

I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.
cAPSLOCK
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212
Merit: 1341


UNLEASH THE FURY!


View Profile
June 28, 2018, 05:55:52 PM

If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

If you don't see it, you don't see it.  But it is the tragedy of the commons.  Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain.  Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can.  The more is given the more will be used.  Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.

For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write.  These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added.  It's the way of the world.  We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.  

This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.

Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.

Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.
Pages: « 1 ... 20666 20667 20668 20669 20670 20671 20672 20673 20674 20675 20676 20677 20678 20679 20680 20681 20682 20683 20684 20685 20686 20687 20688 20689 20690 20691 20692 20693 20694 20695 20696 20697 20698 20699 20700 20701 20702 20703 20704 20705 20706 20707 20708 20709 20710 20711 20712 20713 20714 20715 [20716] 20717 20718 20719 20720 20721 20722 20723 20724 20725 20726 20727 20728 20729 20730 20731 20732 20733 20734 20735 20736 20737 20738 20739 20740 20741 20742 20743 20744 20745 20746 20747 20748 20749 20750 20751 20752 20753 20754 20755 20756 20757 20758 20759 20760 20761 20762 20763 20764 20765 20766 ... 24195 »
  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!