Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2020, 03:53:38 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: 9/19 Closing Price:
0 - 1 (1.6%)
<$10,000 - 3 (4.8%)
$10,000-$10,500 - 2 (3.2%)
$10,501-$11,000 - 13 (20.6%)
$11,001-$11,500 - 19 (30.2%)
$11,501-$12,000 - 8 (12.7%)
$12,001-$12,500 - 7 (11.1%)
$12,501-$13,000 - 2 (3.2%)
>$13,000 - 3 (4.8%)
>$20,000 - 5 (7.9%)
Total Voters: 63

Pages: « 1 ... 23233 23234 23235 23236 23237 23238 23239 23240 23241 23242 23243 23244 23245 23246 23247 23248 23249 23250 23251 23252 23253 23254 23255 23256 23257 23258 23259 23260 23261 23262 23263 23264 23265 23266 23267 23268 23269 23270 23271 23272 23273 23274 23275 23276 23277 23278 23279 23280 23281 23282 [23283] 23284 23285 23286 23287 23288 23289 23290 23291 23292 23293 23294 23295 23296 23297 23298 23299 23300 23301 23302 23303 23304 23305 23306 23307 23308 23309 23310 23311 23312 23313 23314 23315 23316 23317 23318 23319 23320 23321 23322 23323 23324 23325 23326 23327 23328 23329 23330 23331 23332 23333 ... 27291 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion  (Read 22517926 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. (148 posts by 37 users deleted.)
d_eddie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1019



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 10:24:17 AM
Merited by VB1001 (2)

They will probably just reuse LN channels and just settle them regularly. With enough transactions, maybe they would be settling those channels hourly...

Settled? You mean become actualized on the Bitcoin chain?
Yes, ...

Ohkaaay.... If the average channel is settled on chain hourly, then given current block size, you have limited the Lightning Network to about 20,000 channels. Not users, channels. IOW, I think you might want to work on your hypothetical scenario.


Your way of "sanitising" quotes, cutting here and there makes it loses all context.

I was talking about a future scenario where Bitcoin has been massively adopted just to show how it would be possible and how L2 would play a key role on it.

As I said, we would be talking about one settlement for each thousands of L2 tx's. Also, not all opened channels would be of global payment processors needing a more frequent settlement. Also we would be talking about hundreds of millions daily higher layer tx's. If someday Bitcoin would reach that level of massive adoption it will be gradually adapting to it. And yes, it will be having some blocksize increase along the way, as needed to accomodate the usage from higher layers.

We are not already there. So you can't use future usage numbers with current limitations. That makes no sense. I was just showing that it will be possible to scale MASSIVELY without an accordingly LINEAR blocksize increase... which seems to be the choice of other coins... and that's not SCALING.


Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit
1600962818
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600962818

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600962818
Reply with quote  #2

1600962818
Report to moderator
AWARD-WINNING
CASINO
CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE
CLUBHOUSE
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1600962818
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600962818

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600962818
Reply with quote  #2

1600962818
Report to moderator
1600962818
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1600962818

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1600962818
Reply with quote  #2

1600962818
Report to moderator
VB1001
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 728
Merit: 2247


<<CypherPunkCat>>


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 10:35:41 AM



Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

+2sM

With how easy it would be to work with a button:

I like it

And the activity to rise in rank. Wink
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 4130


Let's moon together #DUDEphilosophy


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 10:40:00 AM



Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

No worries WO's do merit what has to be Merit Smiley
had gained a sendable so got your back there ....


kenzawak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 851



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 10:59:10 AM
Merited by infofront (1)

It's time for the China memes again :

VB1001
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 728
Merit: 2247


<<CypherPunkCat>>


View Profile WWW
April 09, 2019, 11:01:46 AM



Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

No worries WO's do merit what has to be Merit Smiley
had gained a sendable so got your back there ....

You are always generous, send me 614sM. please.

Thx. Grin
d_eddie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1019



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:03:13 AM

Thank you @mic and @VB! It does feel good to know that peeps have my back.  Cool

Welcome back Torque and... uh... ROSEWATER! Is that real? This must be the most bullish thing I've seen in the last few weeks. Take care, Mayor. We want to see you sparkle like Laurent-Perrier at the Party. It's being moved up, I hear.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:03:24 AM

Off topic, but...

Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


Now where's my hat?
Good question. No welcome back from me until you wear your hat. You may or may not have been missed.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:10:03 AM
Merited by vapourminer (1)


Blah blah blah larger block blah blah


You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend

Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof.

And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...?

For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make.
I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim.

Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.

The market picks the winners. The market doesn't always care about "superior technology".
That's fair if the argument is made that way. But using the market's decision as an argument for which is "better" in a technical argument doesn't make sense.

I don't think there's anything wrong with just outright stating that you're into Bitcoin because the most prominent representatives of BCash are a bunch of ass wipes that can not be trusted. And that's clearly the reasoning that most people arguing with jbreher are following. After all they're clearly incapable of having a technical debate about the matter. I fall into that camp as well, but I'm not going to pretend that I can hold a candle to jbreher on this topic. Never bothered getting into the technicalities of BTC so can't argue on his level.

If they were the only information that I had regarding BTC vs BCash I would be siding with BCash myself. So maybe some people in this thread should take a step back and consider the implications of their petty tribalism with regard to new coiners.

The game isn't over yet, and if all that new people have to go by is a bunch of nonsense vs technical arguments we could very well see BCash overtaking.

So for whatever reasons, people who care about BTC may want to consider whether or not they want to taint its image with retarded personal attacks and complete absence of rationality.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:18:04 AM

Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.

1.  Agreed.  Popularity does not imply superior technology.  

2.  Conversely, superior technology does not imply popularity.  Superior technology loses all the time, especially when going up against a competitor with entrenched network effects. Inferior protocols win. All. The. Time.

3.  If you are trying to build a global competitor to fiat, popularity and network effects are incredibly important.  

It is unquestionable that Bitcoin has stronger network effects than Bcash, by orders of magnitude.  

Further Bcash technology (BCH and SV) is inferior, because its security model is weak.  Its security model is weak for a number of reasons, all of which come back to a lack of effective decentralization. Without an effective security model, it is not an attractive store of value.  If you are not an effective store of value, you cannot gain network effects.  

If you have inferior network effect and inferior technology, then you have a snowballs chance. In the unlikely event that 8MB blocks became essential for survival, community consensus would rapidly coalesce around 8MB blocks, there would be a hard fork and BCH and SV would remain stranded assets. But the reality is that 8MB are completely unnecessary and would make BTC weaker, not stronger. Accordingly no such consensus exists.


 I am far more worried about a disruptive innnovation which does away with the need for a blockchain (such as Grin) than I am worried about a Bitcoin carbon copy with a couple of parameter tweaks.  



Good post. But keep in mind that networks can grow and die rapidly. Especially in volatile phases.

Billions of people are going to get into blockchain in the coming years.

And dumb moonbois will by default be more attracted to slimy personalities that talk big, while the more rational people will shy away from tribal arguments. If most Bitcoiners started arguing in the manner as some people in this thread do we could very quickly see BCash overtaking, not because of people moving over but because of new people making their decisions.


Does Grin not have a blockchain? I thought the only thing that made it unique was it's inflation model. (Edit: Nvm just saw Biodom's post.)
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1553



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:22:24 AM

Damn not only didn't catch up on this thread but I fell behind another 5 pages.

Having shit to do in life gets in the way.Smiley

and getting distracted by threads like this

http://www.forwardlook.net/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=31027&posts=116&start=1

and vids of rust removal doesn't help! Cheesy

This shit is cool.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Electrolysis+rust+removal&client=firefox-b-1-d&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiMpsaq6cHhAhXR1VkKHd00DeAQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=920

I just lost an age wading through that '59 Sport Fury restoration. The amount of work, skill and dedication... Jeez.
d_eddie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 1019



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:22:49 AM
Merited by vapourminer (1), JayJuanGee (1)

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit.
Quote
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.
I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes.

I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".

That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice.

TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed by the users, we will get them.
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:27:51 AM

Germany is so full of cucks that they're legitimately scared of stocks and building wealth.

Source: https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/opinion/be-careful-why-germans-stubbornly-insist-on-making-bad-investment-decisions/23583688.html?ticket=ST-2183996-ne4JKyc4gH9QlbZDjIAn-ap1
BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:29:29 AM

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is deadagain
El duderino_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190
Merit: 4130


Let's moon together #DUDEphilosophy


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:30:40 AM



Wish I had a merit for you.
+WOsMerit

No worries WO's do merit what has to be Merit Smiley
had gained a sendable so got your back there ....

You are always generous, send me 614sM. please.

Thx. Grin

That would require me to gain 1228 merit to generate those 614 and send not a single one to any other member ... looks like a difficult task you give me Roll Eyes

kenzawak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 851



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:34:36 AM

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is deadagain

BTCMILLIONAIRE
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 799



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:35:11 AM

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit.
Quote
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.
I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes.

I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers".

That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice.

TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed by the users, we will get them.
The last point you've made was the nail in the coffin regarding my decision to side with Bitcoin. There's too much money involved to allow Bitcoin to die due to technical issues.
kurious
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1553



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:39:09 AM

Off topic, but...

Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.


Now where's my hat?

Welcome back Mayor, good to know you're still standing.   Hope you had nothing in QuadrigaCX
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2310
Merit: 1250



View Profile
April 09, 2019, 11:44:15 AM

Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is deadagain
Like China would even really ban mining there, ha. Bitmain has too much money to bribe officials.
Retina
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 59


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 12:14:51 PM

Indian Crypto Community Protests Take Pace Against Supreme Court’s Crypto Banking Ban.

https://www.btcwires.com/c-buzz/indian-crypto-community-protests-take-pace-against-supreme-courts-crypto-banking-ban/
somac.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 836
Merit: 278


View Profile
April 09, 2019, 12:15:30 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)

I can't agree enough. What kind of sickness is it for people like roach, stolfi, jbreher, etc to come here and spout their non-stop garbage
I wouldn't bundle jbreher with stolfi. And The Roach is just on another plane of existence.

I'm not saying they are the same. What I mean is the constant posting about the same topic over and over again that has already been answered by everyone here many times over. It seems like very obsessive behavior, especially since they know they can't convince anyone here of anything they say.

jbreher in particular is bad with this. Why does he keep posting his so called technical comments here, when he could be posting them in the development area of the forum or github. Perhaps because he is full of shit and knows it.
Pages: « 1 ... 23233 23234 23235 23236 23237 23238 23239 23240 23241 23242 23243 23244 23245 23246 23247 23248 23249 23250 23251 23252 23253 23254 23255 23256 23257 23258 23259 23260 23261 23262 23263 23264 23265 23266 23267 23268 23269 23270 23271 23272 23273 23274 23275 23276 23277 23278 23279 23280 23281 23282 [23283] 23284 23285 23286 23287 23288 23289 23290 23291 23292 23293 23294 23295 23296 23297 23298 23299 23300 23301 23302 23303 23304 23305 23306 23307 23308 23309 23310 23311 23312 23313 23314 23315 23316 23317 23318 23319 23320 23321 23322 23323 23324 23325 23326 23327 23328 23329 23330 23331 23332 23333 ... 27291 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!