Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:32:23 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 [1383] 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804935 times)
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428


@theshmadz


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 04:19:04 PM
 #27641

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
1481013143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013143
Reply with quote  #2

1481013143
Report to moderator
1481013143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013143
Reply with quote  #2

1481013143
Report to moderator
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a transaction fee.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481013143
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481013143

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481013143
Reply with quote  #2

1481013143
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:21:01 PM
 #27642

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:37:31 PM
 #27643

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:41:58 PM
 #27644

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 06:52:51 PM
 #27645

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling.

I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:06:01 PM
 #27646

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  

Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others.

You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today?

Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice.

And if it doesn't rise, what's your  long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income?  

Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period.

Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? 

Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out?

BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling.

I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that.



Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:15:47 PM
 #27647

Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?

I am for an increase, sooner the better. Not sure how I can say this more clearly. I just don't think that the maxblocksize argument alters the incentives in the mining game, yet.

I think you are getting too used to having people badger you in this thread these days. You're starting to see enemies when they are friends.   Cheesy
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:29:16 PM
 #27648

Meanwhile... A money pit called Ethereum.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:31:08 PM
 #27649

Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.  

In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.  

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

I've got no problem with this.  Its nice that most of the value BTC holders have may be preserved.  But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution.

And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:37:59 PM
 #27650

Great to here that. Hope you mean it.

But you're  ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does  want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?

I am for an increase, sooner the better. Not sure how I can say this more clearly. I just don't think that the maxblocksize argument alters the incentives in the mining game, yet.

I think you are getting too used to having people badger you in this thread these days. You're starting to see enemies when they are friends.   Cheesy

I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase.

I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 07:50:35 PM
 #27651

Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.  

In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.  

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

I've got no problem with this.  Its nice that most of the value BTC holders have may be preserved.  But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution.

And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc.

I've been meaning to mention this scenario.

Big corporate consults with Blockstream to construct a proprietary corporate SC with a significant innovation that Bitcoin proper definitely would want to incorporate. Before any of this success is known to the market,  corporate forces Blockstream to sign a non-compete.

With Bitcoin Core still controlled by these devs, said innovation can't get back ported to Bitcoin Core because it continually gets blocked by non consensus. A hard fork introduced by anonymous dev can't get off the ground for the same reasons XT might not get off the ground.

What then?
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:08:12 PM
 #27652

I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase.

I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January?

I refuse to argue on behalf of a point I didn't make.  Cool

Although, now that you mention it... what if a vast majority of the community (ill defined), wanted to increase the block reward? If the "community" = mining nodes and full nodes, this is exactly how changes happen. A majority of hashing power and servicing nodes become a dominant fork, and the losers either join them or have an altcoin with an impossible difficulty. 

The mining incentive structure is built in, and not terribly reliant on the general user community's opinion. Larger blocks servicing increased tx volume and their accompanying fees is good for miners (to the point of being limited by hardware and bandwidth capacity). Altering the block reward, would probably nuke the coin's value, so there is a sort of MAD incentive against it.

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:10:02 PM
 #27653

^ Time to post this again: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/who-controls-bitcoin/
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:22:43 PM
 #27654

The spring appears to be coiling for a massive, long-overdue move. A mere 10x-ing might be too tame this time around; we have a lot of catching up to do.

Greece implementing capital controls enforced by a week-long bank holiday, right on cue.

Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:23:02 PM
 #27655


This would be the final arbiter.

But, like the fork in 2013, I think miners would solve it before trading on classic vs new began.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:25:19 PM
 #27656


This would be the final arbiter.

But, like the fork in 2013, I think miners would solve it before trading on classic vs new began.

Yup. It's the silent ace up investors' sleeves that prevents any funny business by the miners, devs, or other stakeholders.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:28:52 PM
 #27657

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

Are you sure miners acting rationally wouldn't consider the block limit as 1 dimension of the potential way to increase transaction capacity? The real question isn't "how/when/to what do we increase the block size", it's "how do we increase transaction capacity in a way that maintains a healthy market for hashes". Anything that centralises towards the miners, or amongst the miners, is bad for the eco system as a whole. BIP 101 would create a trend toward both.

Vires in numeris
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 28, 2015, 08:52:25 PM
 #27658

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

Are you sure miners acting rationally wouldn't consider the block limit as 1 dimension of the potential way to increase transaction capacity? The real question isn't "how/when/to what do we increase the block size", it's "how do we increase transaction capacity in a way that maintains a healthy market for hashes". Anything that centralises towards the miners, or amongst the miners, is bad for the eco system as a whole. BIP 101 would create a trend toward both.

Miners create the blocks, so I'm not sure what decentralizing away from miners would even mean. If you mean that smaller miners are dependent on, or even supported by, 1MB blocks, I disagree. It may even be the opposite, smaller mining operations may have access to better bandwidth and speed vs remote industrial mining farms in rural china.

Economies of scale encourage, especially since the arrival of ASICs, the relative centralization of mining. This was not a surprise and was predicted from the very beginning. IMO maxblocksize has almost nothing to do with it.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 09:02:10 PM
 #27659

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

Are you sure miners acting rationally wouldn't consider the block limit as 1 dimension of the potential way to increase transaction capacity? The real question isn't "how/when/to what do we increase the block size", it's "how do we increase transaction capacity in a way that maintains a healthy market for hashes". Anything that centralises towards the miners, or amongst the miners, is bad for the eco system as a whole. BIP 101 would create a trend toward both.

Miners create the blocks, so I'm not sure what decentralizing away from miners would even mean. If you mean that smaller miners are dependent on, or even supported by, 1MB blocks, I disagree. It may even be the opposite, smaller mining operations may have access to better bandwidth and speed vs remote industrial mining farms in rural china.

Economies of scale encourage, especially since the arrival of ASICs, the relative centralization of mining. This was not a surprise and was predicted from the very beginning. IMO maxblocksize has almost nothing to do with it.



What a great point.

The 5 largest miners in the world already told us they're trapped behinf the GFC with inferior connectivity speeds. And yes, we have to assume the relay network is factored into that statement.

It may turn out that a small miner could do the large block better connectivity attack Wiulle was going on about on reddit because of a direct connection to the relay network that causes the Chinese miners to choke.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 28, 2015, 09:09:41 PM
 #27660

I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase.

I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January?

I refuse to argue on behalf of a point I didn't make.  Cool

Although, now that you mention it... what if a vast majority of the community (ill defined), wanted to increase the block reward? If the "community" = mining nodes and full nodes, this is exactly how changes happen. A majority of hashing power and servicing nodes become a dominant fork, and the losers either join them or have an altcoin with an impossible difficulty.  

The mining incentive structure is built in, and not terribly reliant on the general user community's opinion. Larger blocks servicing increased tx volume and their accompanying fees is good for miners (to the point of being limited by hardware and bandwidth capacity). Altering the block reward, would probably nuke the coin's value, so there is a sort of MAD incentive against it.

Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.

This argument has  come up many times in the last week especially since Matonis brought it up despite him not understanding what's going on.

It won't ever happen because the idea has never even come up and  not been contested or challenged. Reason being, everyone is here in the first place, whether they know it or not,  because the supply is fixed and no one wants to change it, let alone a majority.
Pages: « 1 ... 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 [1383] 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 ... 1560 »
  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!