cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:02:48 PM Last edit: August 17, 2015, 04:04:36 PM by cypherdoc |
|
We have been reminded, by the pretention nodes, that there is always a risk of a largeblock being orphaned, especially the first one, then the next one that is larger, and so on. Not only due to timing, verification of the block, the technical stuff, but also the willingness of others to build on it. In business, the risk transforms directly to cost.
After a block of 2MB for example, the risk is reduced for blocks up to and including that exact size. We will therefore in the future see step increases in the blocksize, with retraction in between due to the varying demand. The typical leg up, stability, another leg up pattern, all market based.
Yes, tip toeing forward according to fundamentals, both technical and economic. Spammers can try to influence that progression but it will cost them.
|
|
|
|
Paashaas
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3566
Merit: 4704
|
|
August 17, 2015, 02:08:56 PM |
|
The 1MB'ers are happy watching that adoption isn't growing anymore. Stupidity at its best.
I agree, it's always the same story; ppl dont like to come out of there comfort zone. To much noob bitching all over the place, i'll take a Bitcoin break, everything will be all fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter R
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 17, 2015, 03:40:23 PM |
|
Hey Guys,
I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit). There seem to be three good migration choices:
/r/bitcoin_uncensored 1,403 subscribers
/r/bitcoinxt 2,390 subscribers /r/btc 625 subscribers
On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc. Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid).
So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment. What are other peoples' thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Bagatell
|
|
August 17, 2015, 03:55:25 PM |
|
All of the above, Multis ftw.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:19:39 PM |
|
564
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:33:52 PM |
|
Hey Guys,
I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit). There seem to be three good migration choices:
/r/bitcoin_uncensored 1,403 subscribers
/r/bitcoinxt 2,390 subscribers /r/btc 625 subscribers
On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc. Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid).
So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment. What are other peoples' thoughts?
I unsubscribed from /r/bitcoin and subscribed to all of the above. Not sure which is the right path, but they are all better than thermos' Stalinist utopia.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:35:26 PM |
|
Hey Guys,
I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit). There seem to be three good migration choices:
/r/bitcoin_uncensored 1,403 subscribers
/r/bitcoinxt 2,390 subscribers /r/btc 625 subscribers
On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc. Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid).
So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment. What are other peoples' thoughts?
I unsubscribed from /r/bitcoin and subscribed to all of the above. Not sure which is the right path, but they are all better than thermos' Stalinist utopia. use this: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3ha129/thoughts_on_normalizing_this_new_sub_and_killing/cu5ufhl
|
|
|
|
lunarboy
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:36:03 PM |
|
The 1MB'ers are happy watching that adoption isn't growing anymore. Stupidity at its best.
Stupidity is pretending that "adoption" and "growth" is all about users & transactions. Probably one of your more stupid posts. brg444 is correct. EG: Closed minded stubbornness it pretending it's not. The reason for these phenomenal VC investments has nothing to do with the 'block size debate' this false cause fallacy, is yet another desperate attempt to argue some hidden agenda and self interest, in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:37:47 PM |
|
564
Still no blocks though apparently. There needs to be statements from the pool operators telling miners how they are voting. Right now I think most are being neutral to not lose anyone (either way), but at some point miners will want to know what the pools plan to do so they can migrate to pools aligned with them.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:42:10 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:42:53 PM |
|
Hey Guys,
I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit). There seem to be three good migration choices:
/r/bitcoin_uncensored 1,403 subscribers
/r/bitcoinxt 2,390 subscribers /r/btc 625 subscribers
On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc. Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid).
So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment. What are other peoples' thoughts?
There is always cryptocrypt.org https://cryptocrypt.net/ it's what this website should have been iCE and cypher may be band after a single interaction, it was born from a similar conflict with theymos. I think it's still run by one of cyphers favorites the Goat.
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:44:00 PM |
|
564
Still no blocks though apparently. There needs to be statements from the pool operators telling miners how they are voting. Right now I think most are being neutral to not lose anyone (either way), but at some point miners will want to know what the pools plan to do so they can migrate to pools aligned with them. i've counted 3 pools so far. it's early: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbbxz/two_new_p2pools_you_can_join_mining_on_xt/
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:46:33 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 04:52:21 PM |
|
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. ) So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found.
|
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:06:38 PM |
|
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. ) So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found. this is true. but i'd argue, this is exactly what we want to see and represents creative destruction in process. disadvantaged p2pools are seeing an opportunity to level the playing field by attracting pro-XT hashers over to their pools to gain marketshare. if we are correctly surmising the "economic majority" favoring XT, then large traditional pools need to be concerned with this migration if it occurs. they stand to lose hashers. of course, the flipside is true as well, by declaring one's use of XT software, they too could lose pro-Core hashers. i still think XT is on the right side of this ultimately though.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:15:59 PM |
|
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. ) So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found. this is true. but i'd argue, this is exactly what we want to see and represents creative destruction in process. disadvantaged p2pools are seeing an opportunity to level the playing field by attracting pro-XT hashers over to their pools to gain marketshare. if we are correctly surmising the "economic majority" favoring XT, then large traditional pools need to be concerned with this migration if it occurs. they stand to lose hashers. of course, the flipside is true as well, by declaring one's use of XT software, they too could lose pro-Core hashers. i still think XT is on the right side of this ultimately though. one other thing. if hashers move to p2pool, what we'll get is increasing decentralization of mining, which would be a side effect of this split in ideology. and not just by hashers moving away from larger pools but by adopting the p2pool concept in general. that is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:17:57 PM |
|
573
|
|
|
|
rocks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1153
Merit: 1000
|
|
August 17, 2015, 05:40:31 PM |
|
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. ) So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found. this is true. but i'd argue, this is exactly what we want to see and represents creative destruction in process. disadvantaged p2pools are seeing an opportunity to level the playing field by attracting pro-XT hashers over to their pools to gain marketshare. if we are correctly surmising the "economic majority" favoring XT, then large traditional pools need to be concerned with this migration if it occurs. they stand to lose hashers. of course, the flipside is true as well, by declaring one's use of XT software, they too could lose pro-Core hashers. i still think XT is on the right side of this ultimately though. one other thing. if hashers move to p2pool, what we'll get is increasing decentralization of mining, which would be a side effect of this split in ideology. and not just by hashers moving away from larger pools but by adopting the p2pool concept in general. that is a good thing. I think what is more likely is a small percentage of miners move to p2pool for this issue and then a larger pool adopts XT to both stop the blead and to capture share. Then the dam breaks
|
|
|
|
|