coins101
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 05:27:00 PM |
|
Pools aren't miners. Meh.
|
|
|
|
billyjoeallen
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007
Hide your women
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 05:28:19 PM |
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created.
|
|
|
|
xyzzy099
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1065
Merit: 1077
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 05:42:04 PM |
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
Nas
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:01:54 PM |
|
Why not? Karpeles needed to liquidate them before collapsing. I'm almost sure that Bitfinex was not the only exchange they trade for government currency.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1792
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:02:25 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:03:45 PM |
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. mining is decentralized mining CANNOT be centralized, even with 32GB blocks there is never going to be one single mining company and there will always be pools which allow small miners to mine without the need to download / validate blocks. mining will forever be decentralized.
|
|
|
|
aztecminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:04:40 PM |
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now.
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:07:42 PM |
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now. its always best to do the trade no one else wants to do.
|
|
|
|
aztecminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:10:10 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Fakhoury
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1027
Permabull Bitcoin Investor
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:14:17 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
aztecminer
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:23:52 PM |
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. seems risky to buy right now .. all this we are going to fork bitcoin.. and pretending BFX is all good. = bullish.. every time i read these posts about getting a fork all i think of is eating spaghetti with a fork ... BFX said they are the market leaders.. i'm not feeling the bull mood right now. its always best to do the trade no one else wants to do. i'm just not biting right now on the exchange. i hear ya.. that what i'm going to do ..i'm on the trade that no one else is on for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:32:54 PM |
|
Soon bulls be like ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fmeasure-cash-flow1.jpg&t=665&c=y0LqE8vci557jg) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2Fbd6bd7cc358c648563df7a8c9b130845%2Ftumblr_n31x1hfQl31tqjkj4o1_250.gif&t=665&c=Yv2ui_R77FhETQ)
|
|
|
|
Wexlike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1473
Merit: 1086
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:38:34 PM |
|
Great ! And now let me see the code of BIP100. Ops.
|
|
|
|
PoolMinor
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1843
Merit: 1338
XXXVII Fnord is toast without bread
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 06:40:52 PM |
|
Bitcoin can't be owned......
Truest statement here. We can only own the access to the coins.
|
|
|
|
JimboToronto
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4102
Merit: 4729
You're never too old to think young.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 07:01:05 PM |
|
Soon bulls be like ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fmeasure-cash-flow1.jpg&t=665&c=y0LqE8vci557jg) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2Fbd6bd7cc358c648563df7a8c9b130845%2Ftumblr_n31x1hfQl31tqjkj4o1_250.gif&t=665&c=Yv2ui_R77FhETQ) I guess it depends on how you define "soon". I'm willing to wait a few more years if necessary.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 07:02:01 PM |
|
Bitcoin is only decentralized as it stands because the people mining are not the same as the ones running nodes.
An inconsiderate block size increase would change this dynamic and forever lead to more centralization.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Online
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1792
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/lamp.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 07:02:23 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
August 28, 2015, 07:02:49 PM |
|
Soon bulls be like ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs.hswstatic.com%2Fgif%2Fmeasure-cash-flow1.jpg&t=665&c=y0LqE8vci557jg) ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2F37.media.tumblr.com%2Fbd6bd7cc358c648563df7a8c9b130845%2Ftumblr_n31x1hfQl31tqjkj4o1_250.gif&t=665&c=Yv2ui_R77FhETQ) I guess it depends on how you define "soon". I'm willing to wait a few more years if necessary. my bitcoins die with me.
|
|
|
|
|