Bitcoin Forum
November 23, 2017, 06:24:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011677 times)
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:04:42 AM
 #31101

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
1511418269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511418269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511418269
Reply with quote  #2

1511418269
Report to moderator
1511418269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511418269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511418269
Reply with quote  #2

1511418269
Report to moderator
1511418269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511418269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511418269
Reply with quote  #2

1511418269
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511418269
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511418269

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511418269
Reply with quote  #2

1511418269
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:09:00 AM
 #31102

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Yes, very funny that you would bring up this totally irrelevant and asinine comparison  Cheesy Cheesy

"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:17:25 AM
 #31103

Brian Armstrong gets it:

https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/633307650965409792
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:17:43 AM
 #31104

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Yes, very funny that you would bring up this totally irrelevant and asinine comparison  Cheesy Cheesy

Lol yea im off bitcoin.  Gogo ripple!
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 11:27:13 AM
 #31105


Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.

But it is. Just because the house is not on fire today, doesn't mean you don't buy a fire extinguisher.  Bitcoin is hobbled, and blockstream and LN go to great lengths to point this out when setting out there business case.


Quote from: brg444
I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.

If I had a satoshi for every time a developer said that....

The xt block limit change is considered trivial - replacing a #define with a configurable variable routine. ( there is a bit more, but its that in essence)

Getting scripts to work correctly is a far more complicated matter - the place holders exist (trivial implementation), but the functionality hasn't even been ring fenced yet.



We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:29:40 AM
 #31106


1/ It's just unbelievable
2/ that a company like twitter
3/ is worth 20 billion US$.
4/ Really a weird world
5/ that we live in.

TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:51:16 AM
 #31107

Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT.  Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will.

While not directly relevant to the mechanism in which XT plans to introduce itself, here's a snippet from earlier times (back when it was still '20MB or bust') that would still apply if miners ended up being dishonest (e.g. voting for larger blocks and kicking in the mechanism, but not actually processing them - let alone mining them).

Couture: I mean, if we extrapolate... if most companies that you've talked to are on board with this - with switching to Bitcoin XT - then what you're saying is essentially that this is gonna happen, this block size increase is gonna happen, no matter what.

Hearn: I think so.  The only question is: how long does it take for people to, y'know, opt in?  Do we really have the majority that we think we do?  I mean, you know, from polling, you know, going and talking to, you know, important players in the ecosystem we think we do, but there's nothing quite like measuring it for real.

Couture: Mm-hmm

Hearn: And then, the worst case scenario is: the majority of - the economic majority, that we call it - is in favor, but the hash power - mining - majority is not.  That would be a very messy situation for Bitcoin.

Crain: So, can you explain that?  How would that happen?  So you mean that, like, let's say Coinbase and the big companies and they're all in favor, but the mining, uhmm..

Hearn: Yeah, so let's say that, uhm, you know, so that those.. there's been some concerns raised by mining pools in China, for example, where there's a lot of mining going on that.. their connectivity is extremely poor, to the rest of the internet, for a bunch of reasons.  So if the needs of the wider global Bitcoin community start diverging from what, you know, miners in China want, then who wins?  The answer is: the economic majority wins, right, the wider community wins - but it would require a bit of, y'know, a bit of a technical mess to sort everything out in that case.

Crain: Because you somehow have to get, uhm, clients to ignore, potentially, the longest chain...

Hearn: Yeah

Crain: ...to only accept Bitcoin...

Hearn: Yeah.  So, people - again, merchants and exchanges sort of be running Bitcoin XT.  If we imagine this sort of worst case scenario happening, they would ignore the longest chain - doesn't matter that it's the longest - if it's, uhm, y'know, well, no let me rephrase that.

[concurrent]
Crain: They would, they would take the longest chain...
Hearn: They would be forced

Crain: ...with that specific version of the software, right?

Hearn: Yeah.  So let me rephrase that.  Right.  If miners deci...were building a longer chain than the 20 mega chain then, you know, the client would keep switching back to them and keep ending up with this bigger and bigger backlog.  Uhm, and at that point, what we would have to do is, like, checkpoint blocks into both the full nodes and the SPV wallets, so that's a much larger and more complicated upgrade, uhm, to force it onto the larger chain, right.  And in the worst case scenario, if the miners and the rest of the Bitcoin community end up in some kind of, like, full-fledged war, that would basically wreck Bitcoin.  So, we would hope that miners wouldn't do that.  Of course..

Crain: Yeah...

Hearn: ...it's not in their best interests to mess up Bitcoin for everyone.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 11:53:18 AM
 #31108

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.

Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design?
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 12:21:23 PM
 #31109

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.
Clone-and-tweak altcoins are being held up as examples of good design?
Nope, I wanted to show that blockchains and mining networks which have the possibility of carrying more than 1MB of data per 10 minutes don't just collapse.

Edit: Anyway, i guess we will find consensus with 8MB blocks in bitcoin.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 12:33:52 PM
 #31110

10% of network:



707
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 12:38:05 PM
 #31111

685 nodes and rising... (10.8%)

(actually, the figure is 737 lower down, but I cant explain the difference, so I wont quote it)

( Oops, looks like I did.  Kiss  )

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Torque
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 12:46:36 PM
 #31112


1/ It's just unbelievable
2/ that a company like twitter
3/ is worth 20 billion US$.
4/ Really a weird world
5/ that we live in.



With no net revenue and no ability to monetize, they're not worth it and never will be.  Just a matter of time before investors and traders get it, they're a little slow with all this 'techie' stuff.  Wink
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:43:14 PM
 #31113

I believe congratulations are in order.  We've been moved to the alt-coin section!

Incredible. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Really sad though.

ed: I used to know the url where mod actions log is reported, anybody has the link handy? I just want to know which mod actually moved the thread.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:50:02 PM
 #31114

Incredible. I can't believe what I'm seeing. Really sad though.

ed: I used to know the url where mod actions log is reported, anybody has the link handy? I just want to know which mod actually moved the thread.

So this thread is called 'Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.' and if I remember correctly (I am not really too active here, because I find the organisation of this board too streneous and overloading for my mental bandwidth...) it has been about all kinds of things Bitcoin but not about the blocksize for most of its 1500+ pages of existence. Even when assuming the mod's twisted rules, how does moving this thread make sense?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:51:36 PM
 #31115

I believe congratulations are in order.  We've been moved to the alt-coin section!

WTF is this!?

Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:55:42 PM
 #31116

I believe congratulations are in order.  We've been moved to the alt-coin section!

WTF is this!?



Cypherdoc, something happened with your thrust rating. It shows a -32 now. o_O
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:56:38 PM
 #31117

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, those figures I put up yesterday about views demonstrated accelerating growth in the last few weeks/days. Probably by moving it here they thought they could throw off everybody's scent. No one ever notified me.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 02:02:59 PM
 #31118


I FUCKING HATE CENSORSHIP.  Angry
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 02:05:11 PM
 #31119

I posted the news using a throwaway:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hg41x/the_thermos_strikes_again_moves_bitcointalk/

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
impulse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 151


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 02:10:11 PM
 #31120

It's time to get out of this forum, maybe we can coordinate to move en masse to somewhere else.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 »
  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!