Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:32:43 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 ... 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 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804999 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 12:35:30 PM
 #30281

Another Lightning implementation effort appears:

http://bitcoinist.net/hashplex-exclusive-interview-lightning-hub-open-source-release/
1481020363
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020363

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020363
Reply with quote  #2

1481020363
Report to moderator
1481020363
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020363

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020363
Reply with quote  #2

1481020363
Report to moderator
1481020363
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020363

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020363
Reply with quote  #2

1481020363
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 12:44:04 PM
 #30282

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 12:45:39 PM
 #30283

Gold up.  Cypherdoc collapsing.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 12:57:32 PM
 #30284

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:04:39 PM
 #30285

This needs to be read by every doomsayers here:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

More theoretical and idealogical bs

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:10:10 PM
 #30286

You are also aware that lightning is an open source project right? Nobody is forcing you to use it.

Being an open source project says next to nothing about lock-ins that are achieved by network effects on related services.

You mean like how Red Hat has a lock-in on Linux related services, or Oracle with Java?

Oh wait...maybe you meant like MyMonero.com?   Cheesy

All three of those are valid examples. All three likely have weaker network effects than lightning nodes. MyMonero has
weakest network effects though. It doesn't have a thicket of related and dependent products to resist substitution.

That's all arguable certainly.

Seems the centralization/network effect of lightning nodes might not hold if Rusty gets his way...



https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzz2jz

That's funny. I have a Cripplecoiner arguing with me right  now about how my funding  of multiple nodes does not increase decentralization as I am a single point of failure. Yet here we have the architects of LN wanting a single client to open 5 separate payment channels to do just that.

Oh the hypocrisy!
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:14:24 PM
 #30287

Gold collapses in 5 (Elliott-) waves. At the moment probably wave II up in progress:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11923412#msg11923412

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:17:14 PM
 #30288

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Not at all. From the current situation, we can scale up probably 1000 x or more with larger blocks. I call that scaling.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:27:26 PM
 #30289


That's funny. I have a Cripplecoiner arguing with me right  now about how my funding  of multiple nodes does not increase decentralization as I am a single point of failure. Yet here we have the architects of LN wanting a single client to open 5 separate payment channels to do just that.

Oh the hypocrisy!

As usual you are clearly lost on the concept and the technology. But carry on thinking whatever brain turd you come up with makes any sense!

PS. It doesn't and you are so confused once again.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:30:21 PM
 #30290

This needs to be read by every doomsayers here:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

More theoretical and idealogical bs

Such arguments! Much convincing! 

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:37:40 PM
 #30291

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Have we not yet come to an agreement that LN/Sidechains are not a scaling solution *without bigger blocks*


http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:42:44 PM
 #30292

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.
But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?


I'm suggesting that it is putting the cart before the horse.

Let bitcoin scale. Let LN/Sidechains succeed on merit.

Have we not yet come to an agreement that raising the block size is not exactly a scaling solution?

Have we not yet come to an agreement that LN/Sidechains are not a scaling solution *without bigger blocks*

I'm not against bigger blocks. I simply disagree with the urgency suggested by some of their proponents as well as the current proposed implementations (especially the very dangerous XT fork)

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
nby
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 27


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 01:51:46 PM
 #30293


I'm not against bigger blocks. I simply disagree with the urgency suggested by some of their proponents as well as the current proposed implementations (especially the very dangerous XT fork)

The truth is that there's nothing dangerous in the XT fork, and the "smallblockers" are fully aware of this.

Either there will be a clear voting majority behind the push to bigger blocks, or there won't even be a fork. No fork will begin until 75% of the hashing power will start supporting it. In that case it will be crystal clear which fork can claim itself being Bitcoin, and which instead will end up as an altcoin.

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:20:11 PM
 #30294

This needs to be read by every doomsayers here:

https://medium.com/@allenpiscitello/there-is-no-crisis-20b58e14b09c

More theoretical and idealogical bs

Such arguments! Much convincing! 

Here's a quick synopsis of some of the alternative solutions


Limit Mempool Size
All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others

ReplaceDouble Spend by Fee
...

Child Pays For Parent
The solution to having too many transactions in the mempool is MOAR TRANSACTIONS

Wallet Improvements
With enough UI glitter, this shit can look amazing.

Now it might be that I am wrong, and that chap Piscitello is right. Thing is nobody knows.

What we do know is that any increase be it 1.1MB, 8MB, 20MB needs a hard fork, and that a hard fork of this nature will take several months to happen.

What we also know is that the transaction rate is increasing. Whether it is linear or exponential is hard to say, but it is increasing. One effect of this is that average block size is also increasing.

Maybe it will be 18 months before we actually start to regularly see full blocks, if we knew that then we could spend another six months arguing about the values and the schedule. There is a risk however that we could see full blocks sooner BIP101 specified 11 Jan 2016 as the *earliest* date that bigger blocks can be mined. I hope this is timely enough.

I am not arguing we should have bigger blocks *now*, I am arguing that we need to put in place the machinery to have bigger blocks when we need them. Surely you know about the grasshopper and the ant.

The most important thing that has been said countless times, but seemingly never heard is:

If we don't *need* 8mb blocks then *nothing happens*.


http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:36:58 PM
 #30295


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:40:04 PM
 #30296

I'll really not waste my time to prove obvious. :-) .. this mean I'll not print you book in leather with golden letters.

"Current technology cannot handle 24 GB blocks (and will not any time soon)" :-)
You must not understand what proof means.

The problem with your statement is that you've expressed it in terms of an unsolvable problem, which is begging the question.

Processing 24 GB of data in a 10 minute period is possible with technology that exists today. It does not require faster-than-light communication, or violating mass/energy conservation, or solving the halting problem, or anything else that's actually impossible.

Perhaps what you actually mean is that handing a 24 GB every 10 minutes would be expensive using existing technology. Perhaps even so expensive as to cost more than Bitcoin users would be willing to pay.

Expressed in those terms, you have a statement that can actually be rationally evaluated.

You'd need to establish how much it would cost to pay for the hardware and operating expenses to operate a 24 GB/10 minute network, and then estimate how much the users would be willing to pay per-transaction. If the estimated costs exceed the estimated budged, then you'd be correct to say that the network would probably be too expensive to operate.

Of course, once you've phrased the problem in a manner that allows for potential solutions, then it becomes possible to talk about productive things like, "what steps could we take to reduce the cost of operating the network?"

On the other hand, if you phrased your "obvious truth" in a form of an unsolvable problem deliberately because you have a preference for the problem remaining unsolved, then keep doing what you're doing.

Sublime response Justus. The mind cleansing power of rationality!

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:41:26 PM
 #30297


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 02:49:23 PM
 #30298


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:29:24 PM
 #30299


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
Full Node: http://46.51.193.129 (BU)
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 03:32:45 PM
 #30300


All transactions are equal, but some are more equal than others


I guess that's where we disagree.

I know, Napoleon.

So are you suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to pay more fees to get priority?

No.

Now answer my question: are you suggesting raising the block size limit prevents that phenomenon?

No... but I honestly fail to see the point you're trying to make.

Why then the argument that "all transactions are equal"?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 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!