Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:24:49 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 [1471] 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804153 times)
I_bitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:43:01 PM
 #29401

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.



That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

No matter where you go, there you are.
1480854289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854289
Reply with quote  #2

1480854289
Report to moderator
1480854289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854289
Reply with quote  #2

1480854289
Report to moderator
1480854289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854289
Reply with quote  #2

1480854289
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480854289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854289
Reply with quote  #2

1480854289
Report to moderator
1480854289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854289
Reply with quote  #2

1480854289
Report to moderator
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:43:32 PM
 #29402

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP  Cool

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   Cool



don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.
I would like to see an altcoin that is sufficiently different from Bitcoin see some real long term success. Healthy competition is good. I know it won't happen though because exchanges.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 910


Twitter: @wpalczynski


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:46:48 PM
 #29403

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP  Cool

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   Cool



don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.
I would like to see an altcoin that is sufficiently different from Bitcoin see some real long term success. Healthy competition is good. I know it won't happen though because exchanges.

When the user base grows sufficiently exchanges will take notice.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:57:12 PM
 #29404

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:21:09 AM
 #29405

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.



i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:26:09 AM
 #29406

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.



i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.

Sidechains can be done with a soft fork, which means all they need to do is sign up miners (and of course find customers who want to use the side chain). It doesn't require a global consensus.

I_bitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:38:59 AM
 #29407

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus, or removing it, no changes.



I suspect Wladimir was thinking in context of a hardfork vs. context of ongoing blocksize increases chosen by an algorithm.   I might not have seen his specific commentary though so I could be wrong.  It is hard to keep up with all the goings on nowadays.     

I can certainly see how a complete removal of the hardcoded block size limit would be an attractive option.   There are several large systems that have unrestricted scale but are controlled by each individual actor according to their capability.    Bitcoin is much more likely to end up like the big I Internet in this respect than something that everyone can run on their raspberry pi.

With respect to "no changes to consensus rules ever"; that way lies madness  Smiley.  I don't see a solution where Bitcoin retains value as a monetary unit or a ledger of record without a blocksize increase.  Lightning and Sidechains are great but they need a strong ledger of record to support them.   Strength requires broad adoption.    Broad adoption requires high TPS.   With Sidechains I suppose you could argue that everyone will just transition out of Bitcoin into something else but that probably won't fly with those bought into the existing ecosystem.   

 

No matter where you go, there you are.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:48:58 AM
 #29408

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus, or removing it, no changes.



I suspect Wladimir was thinking in context of a hardfork vs. context of ongoing blocksize increases chosen by an algorithm.   I might not have seen his specific commentary though so I could be wrong.  It is hard to keep up with all the goings on nowadays.     

He was thinking in the context of any hard fork, and specifically rejecting the notion of him "deciding" to implement a hard fork that is contraversial.

You are never going to get human consensus on an unlimited block size to the point where it isn't controversial. Just isn't going to happen.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:51:06 AM
 #29409

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

Is this your position too? Because the way Bitcoin is today with a protocol level transaction cap so small it is too crippled to ever become a significant part of the world economy. A cap too small even for LN to provide much scaling because LN needs the capability to close a lot of payment channels simultaneously. SC is not a scaling solution unless Pieter is wrong.
Which then leaves Monero as a lifeboat where I recall some recent post about it having massive scaling capacity, no 1MB rubbish for them!

Icebreaker is transparent like an ice-cube when it comes to campaigning for a crippled Bitcoin, clearly so he can execute a massive Monero put during a time of Bitcoin crisis and Monero pump, hoping to catch the reverse trade when the 1MB is finally fixed and quadruple his coinage accordingly.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:51:56 AM
 #29410

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

Is this your position too?

No, I've already said I'm in favor of an immediate modest increase to 2-3 MB (and generally only keeping up with hardware technology unless there are other changes to the software that improve its ability to scale decentralized, which so far there have not been)

Quote
Which then leaves Monero as a lifeboat where I recall some recent post about it having massive scaling capacity, no 1MB rubbish for them!

The Monero scaling is somewhat similar to BIP100. I consider it very much an open question how that will work out (perhaps okay, perhaps quite poorly), and I wouldn't want to impose something so unproven on Bitcoin.
I_bitcoin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 12:55:36 AM
 #29411


You are never going to get human consensus on an unlimited block size to the point where it isn't controversial. Just isn't going to happen.

The good news is that Bitcoin is not software.   It is a protocol  Smiley.   Of course you have to get people to agree to use your fork but that is another thing entirely.  Errr, consensus?

No matter where you go, there you are.
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 01:17:15 AM
 #29412


You are never going to get human consensus on an unlimited block size to the point where it isn't controversial. Just isn't going to happen.

The good news is that Bitcoin is not software.   It is a protocol  Smiley.   Of course you have to get people to agree to use your fork but that is another thing entirely.  Errr, consensus?

The problem is that currently Bitcoin (the protocol) is conflated with Bitcoin Core (the software). Until this state of things changes we are de facto running a centralized system, with veto power in the hands of a few selected ones. And this is what bothers me the most.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 28, 2015, 01:26:01 AM
 #29413


You are never going to get human consensus on an unlimited block size to the point where it isn't controversial. Just isn't going to happen.

The good news is that Bitcoin is not software.   It is a protocol  Smiley.   Of course you have to get people to agree to use your fork but that is another thing entirely.  Errr, consensus?

The problem is that currently Bitcoin (the protocol) is conflated with Bitcoin Core (the software). Until this state of things changes we are de facto running a centralized system, with veto power in the hands of a few selected ones. And this is what bothers me the most.

It is not a protocol that is amenable to successful modification by a marketplace of different implementations doing different things (with respect to the consensus rules). The result of that is chaos and likely failure.

Perhaps it is possible to build such a protocol, and some ideas along those lines have been discussed here and elsewhere, but there is a lot more to that than just multiple implementations.

Then again the argument could be made that we already have such a protocol/marketplace and it is called altcoins. But if you want to stick with Bitcoin itself, you need more to successfully make changes without human consensus.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 01:36:27 AM
 #29414

No, I've already said I'm in favor of an immediate modest increase to 2-3 MB (and generally only keeping up with hardware technology unless there are other changes to the software that improve its ability to scale decentralized, which so far there have not been)

Good. I am fine with that as well as that is a perfectly sensible position.
It is also a compromise, which is why it is so dismaying to see Core Dev all but ignore Jeff's bare-minimum BIP 102. This is a problem, they are not offering any alternative themselves.

As mentioned before too: IBLT is a known change which can help a lot with decentralised scaling.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2015, 02:17:11 AM
 #29415

I have heard this statement "tx fees are underpriced"  and "fee market is broken" several times and I still don't get it.    Mainly because the way it gets portrayed is that we must raise fees now vs. let things develop naturally otherwise miners can't stay in business.   When the block reward halves what do you think happens?   My expectation is that miners will still need to pay the bills in fiat so the fiat per BTC ratio will increase.    This increase, by it's very nature, increases the fiat "profit" per transaction fee.   So, if fiat/BTC increases due to reward changes the fees go up from the perspective of a fiat holder.   Heck, I suspect the block reward will be a major factor in driving fiat/BTC ratio until the block reward gets close to the average transaction fee.  .

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size and allow nature to take it's course.   Fees, from a fiat perspective, will go up even if the miners do nothing to prioritize transactions by fee or increase the bitcoin denominated standard fee.    Miners will still make a profit as scarcity drives the fiat/btc ratio and the fee market will continue to develop as a means of preserving scarce resources and preventing spam.   It seems to have done an adequate job so far and this may be the best possible outcome with respect to keeping bitcoin globally relevant.   One of the biggest drivers of adoption we have at our disposal is the fiat/btc ratio. 

There must be something I have been missing in the arguments I see about this.   Where does the above thinking not work?

I'm less about raising fees "now" than I am about not suppressing, via centralized governance, fees now and forever.

Block subsides have taken Bitcon this far, we don't need to enhance the subsidies.  There is a line around the block for Satoshi's Better Mousetrap, so we don't need to undercharge nor promote with giveaways.

Good point about fiat/btc ratio driving adoption!  We always operate under the key assumption Bitcoin is and will continue growing.

You also already seem to get the fact that a ~5 cent BTC tx uses electricity equivalent to about 1.5 days worth of typical American home (ie $15-$20; cite: some post on reddit I can no longer find).  That's a good starting point.

What you are missing in order to get from there to my position is an understanding of (the implications of) the fully intentional very high difficulty of forking Bitcoin.  Even uncontroversial soft forks like BIP66 entail some degree of FUD/chaos/drama.  Therefore, it is not best practice to posit anything remotely like an easy, flexible, fine-grained path for us to "get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size and allow nature to take it's course" via consensus and subsequent commits.  Let's work with, leverage, and indeed celebrate, what we have (ossification at 1MB) and not make the actual the enemy of the perfect ("the largest rationally supportable size").  "Rationally" presupposes a purpose, and subjective individual interpretations of Bitcoin's Ultimate PurposeTM differ wildly.   Cheesy

Until block subsidies taper off, we only need (as in must) raise tx fees sufficient to exclude spam via prioritization.  But the spam exclusion/wallet improvement/RBF initiatives also present an excellent early opportunity for the rough contours of a fee market to emerge.  IMO, sudden massive blocksize increases waste that opportunity.

The last step to see my PoV is an appreciation of what sidechain/LN's Layer 2 will do to scale and thereby enhance Layer 1 tx.

As Frappuccino purchases move off main chain and are consolidated by Layer 2 processes, each of Layer 1's 7 tps becomes increasingly valuable, demonstrating it is not the size of the block that matters, but how you use it.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2015, 03:16:46 AM
 #29416

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

Is this your position too?

No, I've already said I'm in favor of an immediate modest increase to 2-3 MB (and generally only keeping up with hardware technology unless there are other changes to the software that improve its ability to scale decentralized, which so far there have not been)

Quote
Which then leaves Monero as a lifeboat where I recall some recent post about it having massive scaling capacity, no 1MB rubbish for them!

The Monero scaling is somewhat similar to BIP100. I consider it very much an open question how that will work out (perhaps okay, perhaps quite poorly), and I wouldn't want to impose something so unproven on Bitcoin.

This is pretty much where I am also.

Either:
  • A 1 time increase, (without all this "I know the future and what will be needed and what we can do when" stuff).  This could be 2-3mb without significant additional risk, and would give a bit of time for other developments to be ready for a more long term change.
  • BIP 100, after some more testing.  The monero method has been working for a good long while, but hasn't really had as much stress testing as would be nice to see.

Any hard fork presents an edge case where unusual risks are presented.  This is especially true when these hard forks are so rare.  There is no practiced resilience to the sorts of things that creative minds can cook up to exploit events. 

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 03:28:42 AM
 #29417


You also already seem to get the fact that a ~5 cent BTC tx uses electricity equivalent to about 1.5 days worth of typical American home (ie $15-$20; cite: some post on reddit I can no longer find).  That's a good starting point.


This is a perfect example of your flawed reasoning.  This comment is analogous to claiming that a sailboat is incredibly inefficient because its energy use is equal to the total wind power available in the ocean divided by the number of sailboats.

Instead the volume of wind power (energy spent mining) is present for a reason that is completely orthogonal to sailboats (transactions).  It is proportional to the amount of energy being input into the system.  In the Bitcoin world, the "energy input" is the conversion of value into bitcoin representation (i.e. long term purchases).  When the block subsidy dies down, this energy input will be reflected in coin appreciation.  When the block subsidy ultimately approaches a negligible quantity, boats will (finally) have to turn on their motors and pay their way across the bitcoin network.

Additionally, you make the circular fallacy of defining the number of total boats allowed on the ocean, and therefore finding the ocean winds to be inefficient.

Ultimately there will be a fee market.  Miners will turn off hashing power until transactions appear that will make mining the block profitable.  We don't need to centrally force this to happen.  You are falling into the fallacy of thinking that others are forcing a lack of a fee market but in fact you are centrally forcing one to exist.  It is technically feasible to have larger blocks, and having them makes each transaction more efficient, so anything less than larger blocks is central planning and reduces efficiency.

And by forcing a fee market you are running the sails and the motors simultaneously, uselessly, and dangerously.

Why is it dangerous?

Money is defined as better by users fundamentally by its transfer efficiency.  This was hard to measure with fiat or PM currencies but it is simple with Bitcoin.  It is the ratio of the fee to the quantity transmitted.  Once the block subsidy diminishes this ratio will be nowhere near zero like it is today.  It is ironic that you ignore this because it is what fundamentally gave Bitcoin value in the early days while nobel laureate economists were insisting that Bitcoin would fail because it had "no intrinsic value".

Once the motor's (transaction's) true efficiency is not hidden by the wind (block subsidy), the most efficient (and accessible) cryptocurrency implementation will "win" just like gold "won" over silver.  Just like Apple is learning, getting a head start does not matter much when a huge percentage of the world simply cannot afford your product, so MUST choose a competitor.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 28, 2015, 03:34:26 AM
 #29418

PS: this hard fork "danger" overrated, like Y2K.  We'll have tested moving across the limit over and over.  And if for some reason TSHTF, the very centralized mining pools will simply get together and fall back to the old code (unwinding blocks > 1MB), just like they did during the accidental hard fork a few months ago.

This is one great property of Bitcoin, since every node validates (processes) every block, you can't have a bug lying latent in a block that's (say) 500 deep in the chain before someone suddenly triggers it.  Half of the nodes will reject the new block RIGHT NOW and the other half will accept it.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2015, 04:04:10 AM
 #29419

PS: this hard fork "danger" overrated, like Y2K.  We'll have tested moving across the limit over and over.  And if for some reason TSHTF, the very centralized mining pools will simply get together and fall back to the old code (unwinding blocks > 1MB), just like they did during the accidental hard fork a few months ago.

This is one great property of Bitcoin, since every node validates (processes) every block, you can't have a bug lying latent in a block that's (say) 500 deep in the chain before someone suddenly triggers it.  Half of the nodes will reject the new block RIGHT NOW and the other half will accept it.

Y2K was pretty easy, the problem was finite, scope driven, and easily prioritized.  Lots of things were just turned off and replaced (though the replacements weren't necessarily better, just maintainable).

There are a number of issues under development that will also reduce the hard fork risks, and block size increase risks.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 28, 2015, 04:59:55 AM
 #29420

Is this your position too? Because the way Bitcoin is today with a protocol level transaction cap so small it is too crippled to ever become a significant part of the world economy. A cap too small even for LN to provide much scaling because LN needs the capability to close a lot of payment channels simultaneously. SC is not a scaling solution unless Pieter is wrong.
Which then leaves Monero as a lifeboat where I recall some recent post about it having massive scaling capacity, no 1MB rubbish for them!

Icebreaker is transparent like an ice-cube when it comes to campaigning for a crippled Bitcoin, clearly so he can execute a massive Monero put during a time of Bitcoin crisis and Monero pump, hoping to catch the reverse trade when the 1MB is finally fixed and quadruple his coinage accordingly.

Yes, that's right.  I joined Bitcointalk in mid-2011 as part of my sinister master plan of "campaigning for a crippled Bitcoin, so [I myself] can execute a massive Monero put during a time of Bitcoin crisis and Monero pump, hoping to catch the reverse trade when the 1MB is finally fixed and quadruple [my] coinage accordingly."

Who told you?  Was it (that fucking troll) smoothie?   Angry

But seriously...you have no evidentiary basis on which to validly assert what is or is not "a protocol level transaction cap so small it is too crippled to ever become a significant part of the world economy."  That is an empirical question; we do not at this time know what sidechains/Lightning will do to relieve Layer 1 tx/fee pressure.

Talking out of your ass may impress Frap.doc, but the Team Core and I know better.

Didn't you learn your lesson about bullshitting when you spouted off some nonsense about 5 year deadlines for DoS regulator deprecation predicated upon an embarrassing dearth of expertise in Bitcoin 101?

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
Pages: « 1 ... 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 [1471] 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 ... 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!