Bitcoin Forum
April 23, 2019, 01:22:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 [86]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.  (Read 119539 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.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1715


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 08:10:33 PM
 #1701


Yeah I know, but it's always fun to toss a truth grenade into a crowd of lying shills.  Roll Eyes


Yeah, right.

For a newbie and your short posting history of nonsense, you surely have established yourself as a credible source for reliable information.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1555982532
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1555982532

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1555982532
Reply with quote  #2

1555982532
Report to moderator
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 22, 2017, 08:25:44 PM
 #1702

Update : https://www.xbt.eu/ (144 Blocks)



JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1715


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
July 22, 2017, 08:48:33 PM
 #1703

Update : https://www.xbt.eu/ (144 Blocks)



[http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img922/7404/F56881.png[/img]

I feel like I am asking a dumb question or I am confused because when I look at https://coin.dance/blocks, I see that in the last 144 blocks everyone is signaling segwit.  100%



In practice, what does the 10% bitcoin.com    20000002 mean?  And, how come it seems to conflict with the coin.dance information.

If  Bitcoin.com were truly signaling something that did not involve segwit, are going to get orphaned per BIP91?

or are they going to be able to hold back the 95% activation of segwit per BIP141?  currently, looks like 100% not 90%?

Or does the 10% of  20000002 mean something else?

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1039
Merit: 1010



View Profile
July 22, 2017, 09:36:47 PM
 #1704

I feel like I am asking a dumb question or I am confused because when I look at https://coin.dance/blocks, I see that in the last 144 blocks everyone is signaling segwit.  100%



In practice, what does the 10% bitcoin.com    20000002 mean?  And, how come it seems to conflict with the coin.dance information.

If  Bitcoin.com were truly signaling something that did not involve segwit, are going to get orphaned per BIP91?

or are they going to be able to hold back the 95% activation of segwit per BIP141?  currently, looks like 100% not 90%?

Or does the 10% of  20000002 mean something else?

The 20000002 means they are signalling segwit.  The pools signalling 20000012 are signalling both segwit and BIP91.

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000



View Profile
July 22, 2017, 09:41:30 PM
 #1705

Bitcoin Core = 00002
Bitcoin Segwit2x = 00012
Bitcoin ABC (BTC1) = 00010

But ... patches exist ... so, we don't know.
And ... BIP91 is not recognize by 96% of the nodes (94 000 nodes).
https://bitcoincore.org/en/bips/

-ck
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842
Merit: 1159


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
July 22, 2017, 10:10:30 PM
 #1706

As for no commitment, some of those are the vocal pools against segwit. What it means is they're not currently mining blocks that can include segwit transactions. It will be a valid block even once segwit is locked in but won't include any segwit transactions if they do that. It also means less fees for them so I doubt they'll do that indefinitely, though they might happily sacrifice it just on principle. The players involved are certainly that way inclined...
In addition it appears that eloipool users (which includes antpool and eligius), the segwit commitment is only included once there are segwit transactions.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Troll Buster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 12:36:01 AM
 #1707


Yeah I know, but it's always fun to toss a truth grenade into a crowd of lying shills.  Roll Eyes


Yeah, right.

For a newbie and your short posting history of nonsense, you surely have established yourself as a credible source for reliable information.

LOL by now everyone knows you're one of the low information shill here.

If I am a newbie then you're a half developed embryo.

You know fuck all about Bitcoin, the technology, the economics and the politics, every time you open your mouth you sound like a whining moron and nobody gives a fuck about a moron's post count.

Stick to the facts or stfu.
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1715


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 01:01:09 AM
 #1708


Yeah I know, but it's always fun to toss a truth grenade into a crowd of lying shills.  Roll Eyes


Yeah, right.

For a newbie and your short posting history of nonsense, you surely have established yourself as a credible source for reliable information.

LOL by now everyone knows you're one of the low information shill here.

If I am a newbie then you're a half developed embryo.

You know fuck all about Bitcoin, the technology, the economics and the politics, every time you open your mouth you sound like a whining moron and nobody gives a fuck about a moron's post count.

Stick to the facts or stfu.



I bolded your royal "we" above.   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

By the way, there are facts and there is logic and there are conclusions that are derived from those.

Some facts are contested, and some facts are speculative, so I agree that a decent foundation in any informational post that asserts reliable conclusions will begin with a decent rendition of facts and maybe even acknowledging the extent to which some of the facts are contested or speculated.

So, yeah thanks for that talking point, newbie.   Tongue

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 546


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 01:20:57 AM
 #1709

...and some facts are speculative...
I'm not sure that there's any English dictionary that would support that.  Roll Eyes

If you have to ask "why?", you wouldn`t understand my answer.
Always be on the look out, because you never know when you'll be stalked by hit-men that eat nothing but cream cheese....
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1715


How much alt coin diversification is needed? 0%?


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 01:31:17 AM
 #1710

...and some facts are speculative...
I'm not sure that there's any English dictionary that would support that.  Roll Eyes


This is not a dictionary concept.  So, don't try to act as if facts are black and white, like math, especially when we are incorporating human renditions of facts. 

Hardly any human has access to perfect information, even though some persons may be more endowed in this arena than others, and maybe depending on the subject matter, too, so almost everyone has to infer a certain amount of information, even when it comes to facts.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 04:16:53 AM
 #1711

If anyone wants to know why Blockstream over played their hand, this reddit post sums it up:

Quote
https://np.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/dk9c27f/
Core/Blockstream/Greg Maxwell explained. Great post by JStfolfi (np.reddit.com)
submitted 6 days ago by jonald_fyookball

jstolfi 160 points 6 days ago*

In my understanding, allowing Luke to run his node is not the reason, but only an excuse that Blockstream has been using to deny any actual block size limit increase.

The actual reason, I guess, is that Greg wants to see his "fee market" working. It all started on Feb/2013. Greg posted to bitcointalk his conclusion that Satoshi's design with unlimited blocks was fatally flawed, because, when the block reward dwindled, miners would undercut each other's transaction fees until they all went bakrupt. But he had a solution: a "layer 2" network that would carry the actual bitcoin payments, with Satoshi's network being only used for large sporadic settlements between elements of that "layer 2".



==> this is in fact a fundamental thinking error.  The fact of splitting up the system in 2 layers that can accomplish transactions changes a priori ZILCH to the market pressure, which is fundamentally the "demand for transaction" and the "artificial or resource-limited scarcity" in front of it.

Greg is absolutely right that bitcoin's economical model is *fundamentally* flawed if its intend is to become a decentralized and fluid payment system (but maybe it is not flawed to become something else, like a speculative vehicle for financial institutions, or a reserve currency for sleazy business or the like).  I outlined this obvious flaw already several times, and most probably Greg with all his math knowledge, saw that easily too.  The very fact that bitcoin's security and consensus decision power depends on Proof of Work (which is in fact a proxy of "proof of wasted economic value") means that the bitcoin system, if it becomes valuable, has to waste a lot of value.   So, essentially, as a whole, bitcoin is a "zero sum game with a big value leak" at first sight: there's net value flowing out of bitcoin's into wasted heat.   That's not necessarily negative: in as much as bitcoin's system also *produces* economical value (for instance, by fluidizing economical interaction that wouldn't have taken place without it), the value creation of bitcoin can overcome its wasting.  For the moment, this is maybe only the case in dark markets where bitcoin did open economical opportunities that weren't possible in the classical fiat system, but right at this moment, my guess is that bitcoin is net wasting a lot of value.

This has to come from somewhere.   There are two sources of "taxes" that finance the wasting of resources:
- inflationary pressure
- fees

Up to now, and most probably in the coming decade, the main financing of the wasting in bitcoin has come from inflationary pressure: coin creation.   That's a pretty obvious and stable system.  But one of the cornerstones in the bitcoin belief system is that at a certain point, inflationary pressure should stop.  This is a fundamental problem in the system but it is so deeply grounded in bitcoin's belief system that it cannot be altered.

So the problem is: once there's no inflationary tax any more, who's going to pay for the waste ?

Answer: the transactions.

==> and this is where Greg's 2 layer model doesn't make any sense: the waste tax is going to be paid by all transactions.  Those on layer 1 and those on layer 2.  And in order for this tax to be sufficiently high, these transactions have to be sufficiently scarce.  If those on layer 2 are too cheap, then everybody will run to layer 2, and layer 1 will be left without "market pressure" and hence without fees.

It doesn't matter what mechanism you use to build layer 2 on top of layer 1.  In the end, transactions, whether they are on layer 2 or on layer 1, have to become scarce enough that people will be willing to pay fees to get them. 

If layer 2 has a natural dependency on layer 1, layer 2 will just be a "block chain magnifier" of some sort.  If layer 2 is unlimited and can live on a very small layer 1, then you get EXACTLY THE SAME effect as unlimited blocks.

There's no difference whether the transaction happens on layer 1 or layer 2: in the end, you need a transaction to be scarce enough so that people pay fees for it, that end up being wasted with proof of work.

Imagine that the LN works out such, that you can do 100 transactions on average on LN for one transaction on the block chain.   Well, in that case, economically, that LN system is equivalent to a block chain with 100 MB blocks and no second layer.  The fees will be the same, the total mining income (to be wasted on PoW) will be the same.  There's no difference.

Most probably, Greg realized this.  1 layer or 2 layers, it doesn't matter.  The problems are the same.  In the end, transactions need to pay for the waste in proof of work, which is the ultimate security of the bitcoin system (and THAT is the other fundamental flaw in bitcoin).  And you need scarcity of these transactions to establish a fee market, whether that market is essentially on layer 1 or layer 2 doesn't matter.  If transactions are too fluid and cheap, the system will crumble in any case.  So you CANNOT allow cheap and fluid transactions, even if they are only cheap and fluid on layer 2.  Because they would crash the market on layer 1, unless you make that technically not so, which means the scarcity on layer 1 folds over to layer 2, and we're back to square one.

So what could Greg still say after realizing that the fundamental problem in bitcoin he discovered (correctly), was in fact not solved at all with a 2 tier network ?   Well, he could mumble something that doesn't matter in all this: the very small RESOURCE waste of the block chain.  Yes, next to the HUGE on purpose waste on proof of waste, there's a small but real resource waste on hard disks networks and so on.  This is why he leveraged this importance of Joe's node in his basement.  While Joe cannot afford $2000,- for his useless node in his basement, bitcoin is wasting a billion dollars or so on proof of waste by a centralized cartel of miners (also due to a fundamental flaw in bitcoin: remunerated proof of waste with economies of scale), but it is Joe's waste that is going to be the culprit, and the need for a second layer.  That's how he can save his face.

This whole circus is in fact the result of a failed solution to a fundamental problem of bitcoin, and the fact that the proponent most probably realized that his solution wasn't a solution to that problem, and hence needed another argument.
Sithara007
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1015


bestmixer.io


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 04:28:38 AM
 #1712

BIP 91 activation is just around 30 minutes from now (3 blocks). It is going to be fun. Any block, which is not signaling BIP 141 will be rejected, and the last time I checked, Canoe Pool was still not signaling BIP 141.

█▀▀█
██▄█
BESTMIXER.IO // BEST BITCOIN MIXER
█▀▀█
██▄█
ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 546


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
 #1713

...and some facts are speculative...
I'm not sure that there's any English dictionary that would support that.  Roll Eyes


This is not a dictionary concept.  So, don't try to act as if facts are black and white, like math, especially when we are incorporating human renditions of facts.  

Hardly any human has access to perfect information, even though some persons may be more endowed in this arena than others, and maybe depending on the subject matter, too, so almost everyone has to infer a certain amount of information, even when it comes to facts.
My bad, I didn't realize that we were ignoring generally accepted meanings of the words we use and just making up things as we go along.  Roll Eyes


Meanwhile, in the real world...
"facts" are objectively provable
and
things that are "speculative" are subjectively open to interpretation (and quite literally the exact opposite of facts).



Edit: I get the feeling that people like you are the reason that, in the last decade, "literally" has become its own antonym.  Undecided

If you have to ask "why?", you wouldn`t understand my answer.
Always be on the look out, because you never know when you'll be stalked by hit-men that eat nothing but cream cheese....
vincentvincent
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 285
Merit: 250


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 04:49:38 AM
 #1714

and it's official:

BIP91 ACTIVATED!
Non-SegWit signaling blocks will be orphaned.


https://www.xbt.eu/
ComputerGenie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 546


Retired IRCX God


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 04:53:38 AM
 #1715

and it's official:

BIP91 ACTIVATED!
Non-SegWit signaling blocks will be orphaned.

That can't be right; Luke Jr told us that this was all to delay segwit. Tongue

If you have to ask "why?", you wouldn`t understand my answer.
Always be on the look out, because you never know when you'll be stalked by hit-men that eat nothing but cream cheese....
Troll Buster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 23, 2017, 05:31:24 AM
Last edit: July 23, 2017, 06:00:10 AM by Troll Buster
 #1716

==> and this is where Greg's 2 layer model doesn't make any sense: the waste tax is going to be paid by all transactions.  Those on layer 1 and those on layer 2.  And in order for this tax to be sufficiently high, these transactions have to be sufficiently scarce.  If those on layer 2 are too cheap, then everybody will run to layer 2, and layer 1 will be left without "market pressure" and hence without fees.

It doesn't matter what mechanism you use to build layer 2 on top of layer 1.  In the end, transactions, whether they are on layer 2 or on layer 1, have to become scarce enough that people will be willing to pay fees to get them.

Most probably, Greg realized this.  1 layer or 2 layers, it doesn't matter.  The problems are the same.  In the end, transactions need to pay for the waste in proof of work, which is the ultimate security of the bitcoin system (and THAT is the other fundamental flaw in bitcoin).  And you need scarcity of these transactions to establish a fee market, whether that market is essentially on layer 1 or layer 2 doesn't matter.  If transactions are too fluid and cheap, the system will crumble in any case.  So you CANNOT allow cheap and fluid transactions, even if they are only cheap and fluid on layer 2.  Because they would crash the market on layer 1

That's right, in the end you can't cheat math and physics.

Layer 2 in the end still depends on Layer 1.

Greg is pretending that by splitting your car's fuel tank in two, it'll somehow give you 100 times the fuel in the future.

The flaw in Greg's logic becomes glaringly obvious when you simply extend it a few times, Greg is basically saying if you build Layer 3 on top of Layer 2, then build Layer 4 on top of Layer 3, etc, you can end up processing all transactions on the planet with Raspberry Pi on Layer 1.

Not going to happen, the transactions data still have to be stored somewhere, someone still have to verify it, and then we're back to square one: 1. Who can we trust, 2. Why would we trust them, and 3. Why would those people want to verify transactions for us.

The flaw is so obvious, yet they're pushing it like mad, and then you have this bankers funded corp kicking away all the Bitcoin senior devs who noticed the flaw instantly and spoke against it. This whole SegWit bullshit just stinks like a classic See Eye Aye op to poison Bitcoin.

SegWit share the same logic of a ponzi scheme, it'll never survive any fair competition and is doomed to fail, that's why the miners don't give a shit about SegWit, the problem has always been the block size limit.

If there is one fatal flaw in Bitcoin, it'd be the 10 minutes confirmation time, most people have very short attention span and they just don't have that kind of patient, if Bitcoin is to dominate the world it needs to confirm transactions within 1 minute. Bitcoin would be over 10 times more popular if it was designed around a 30-60 sec confirmation time frame.

The 10 minutes window gave excuses to idiots like Adam and Greg to sell nonsense, and that's where we are today.


-ck
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2842
Merit: 1159


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
July 23, 2017, 06:10:07 AM
 #1717

Not this shit again... If you want to discuss the pros/cons of blocksize/segwit/bu/classic/xt/abc/whatever, take it elsewhere. This thread was about development and activation of segwit2x. I know it's hard to believe that you can discuss one without the other but that's bullshit - you just want to talk about what your current gripes are and find a way to link it into this discussion. I think this thread has run its course and will only be useful in 3 months' time again.  I can't even be bothered moderating posts that stray from it so I'll just lock it.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
Pages: « 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 [86]
  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!