Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

Ugly? UGLY?? This is exactly what we need, something that neutralizes the Chinese electricity and labor cost advantage.  Without some way of doing that, we cannot regain censorship resistance. The fact that does so while increasing network performance is just a bonus.

The problem i see obviously is that Chinese miners will be reluctant to adopt it.  But if they don't adopt it or something like it, I don't see much future for Bitcoin. Either it will stagnate or it will grow to the point where it becomes a threat to the PRC and they will take over the network.

This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the duel problems of scaling and miner concentration. 

Is he wrong about this?

There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal

[betterangels]

great deal for quick buck right now.

[adamstgBit]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

Ugly? UGLY?? This is exactly what we need, something that neutralizes the Chinese electricity and labor cost advantage.  Without some way of doing that, we cannot regain censorship resistance. The fact that does so while increasing network performance is just a bonus.

The problem i see obviously is that Chinese miners will be reluctant to adopt it.  But if they don't adopt it or something like it, I don't see much future for Bitcoin. Either it will stagnate or it will grow to the point where it becomes a threat to the PRC and they will take over the network.

This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the duel problems of scaling and miner concentration.  

Is he wrong about this?

There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal

yup thats wrong...

Reduce the effect of block propagation times on orphan rates (lost miner income)
De-emphasize block size as an obstacle for scaling and open up potential for on-chain transaction throughput gains using several improvements (listed below).
Optimizations for bandwidth constrained nodes via improvements to the P2P layer
Note: We intend to discuss various solutions such as the ones listed below and pick the best ones.

Parallel validation of blocks (theoretically reduces the profitability of excessive-sized block attacks).
Headers-first mining (largely nullifies excessive-sized block attacks).
Thin blocks: Blocks refer to transactions that have been well propagated rather than including them, allowing for minimization of bandwidth use.
Weak blocks: allow miners to pre-announce the blocks they are working on, to minimize the data sent once a block is found.
Validate Once: Transactions that have been validated when entering a node’s memory pool do not need to be revalidated when included in a block (speeds up block validation).

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[billyjoeallen]

You forgot the link... reading now..

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

Initial Impression --

The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks  (Also Found in Core's roadmap)

The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of  Segwit till the end of the year

The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016  adaptive rule for a block size limit that  heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.

Ugly? UGLY?? This is exactly what we need, something that neutralizes the Chinese electricity and labor cost advantage.  Without some way of doing that, we cannot regain censorship resistance. The fact that does so while increasing network performance is just a bonus.

The problem i see obviously is that Chinese miners will be reluctant to adopt it.  But if they don't adopt it or something like it, I don't see much future for Bitcoin. Either it will stagnate or it will grow to the point where it becomes a threat to the PRC and they will take over the network.

This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the duel problems of scaling and miner concentration. 

Is he wrong about this?

There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal

You are going to have some node centralization in either the CRTA or the Classic RoadMap. The problem is that there are always tradeoffs, so you have to judge which problem is worse: node centralization (nodes are cheap compared to mines) or mining concentration.  Having overwhelming concentration of mining in a single political jurisdiction would be a serious problem anywhere, but having the same issue in Red China makes it much worse.   

The PRC has murdered more of it's own citizens than any other government in the history of civilization. they massacred their own people by the thousands as recently as 1989.  They manipulate currency as a standard matter of policy. They have made it illegal for banks in China to hold Bitcoin accounts or for goods and services to be traded for BTC within the country.   Increasing hashing power within China is producing negative security returns.

[harrymmmm]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

[harrymmmm]

This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the duel problems of scaling and miner concentration. 

Heheh.
If only it was a duel problem we could quickly solve it at 20 paces. So easy

[adamstgBit]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

I blurt shit out when i'm stressed and angry.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^Fact

[adamstgBit]

let try and change to mood in here.



classic head and shoulders pattern about to complete, targeting just under 400.


AKA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[Fatman3001]

let try and change to mood in here.



classic core head and shoulders pattern about to complete, targeting just under 400.


AKA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

ftfy

[bargainbin]

...
The PRC has murdered more of it's own citizens than any other government in the history of civilization. they massacred their own people by the thousands as recently as 1989.
...

To be fair, they never had a shortage of people

"People who try to commit suicide -- don't attempt to save them! . . . China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people." --Mao Zedong

[julian071]

let try and change to mood in here.



classic core head and shoulders pattern about to complete, targeting just under 400.


AKA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

ftfy

lol

[ChartBuddy]

Coin



Explanation

[iCEBREAKER]

Note: This is our initial roadmap proposal. We will run this by miners, companies and users for feedback, before it is finalized.

Bitcoin Classic 2016 Roadmap

The Bitcoin Classic team

[becoin]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

Because I know that you know that most people want free money.
But if they get what they want that will not be money any more!

[bargainbin]

<snip>

[Fatman3001]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

Because I know that you know that most people want free money.
But if they get what they want that will not be money any more!

     ^

He used to be smart. What happened?

Is it the fluoride water thingy aztec was talking about?

[JayJuanGee]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

That's not really a sound logical extension, Adam.

I wouldn't characterize myself as a "small blocker,"  but I am very sympathetic with Core in a lot of ways...

especially in regards to questioning the need and/or the emergency that is put in front of us by the proposals involving XT and Classic and some of the seeming purposeful contention contained in those roadmaps to suggest that a hardfork is the only way to go and to call into question bitcoin's status quo governance in a kind of coo approach.

Anyhow, it does seem that the large majority of the core view seems to be a fairly decent and reasonable road forward... to take one step at a time, beginning with Seg wit and then reconsidering along the way... as seg wit is deployed what the next step should be.

[JayJuanGee]

if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.

you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.

I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later.
Why keep saying stuff like this?

Either his account has been taken over, or Adam has become delirious, and/or won over by some of the "emergency" propaganda (FUD).