Topic: 69,000 (69K) Unconfirmed Transactions! ....WTF...??? - page 4. (Read 6088 times)

If one of the Forks is very weak compared to the other, a small group that could 51% dominate the weaker fork , might rewrite a little of the enemy fork's history to completely destroy it in the eyes of investors. A rewrite of say 3 or 4 hours would be more than enough Bad PR to crush its price permanently.  


 

My two transactions from yesterday still not confirmed. Because I didn't feed miners.  Well done bitcoin.

Not at all.  Hard fork means that the chain is now two independent chains.  On each of these two independent chains, there is consensus.  There's no interaction any more between the two chains, they are now two different crypto currencies.  The market cap of the original chain will now be split over both prongs.  Of course, users and miners might all flock to one of the chains, and abandon the other one.  Or not.  In the end, the users will decide upon the market cap split, and the miners will follow.


That is exactly democracy: the majority imposes its will on the minority.  What you call "democracy" is what is called "consensus".
As long as the soft fork doesn't have a majority OF MINERS behind it, it doesn't impose its will on the others.  Once it does, there's NO FURTHER OPTION.  

What is important to realize, with a soft fork, that is are not the *users* but the *miners* who impose their majority on everyone.  With a hard fork, even if only 10% of the miners continues on the old chain, maybe 90% of the users prefer the old chain, and the old chain coin will get 90% of the market cap.  This is extremely lucrative for the 10% of miners, and the miners that chose the new pron (90% of them initially) will revert to the old chain because it is more lucrative.  In the end, the mining distribution will follow the market cap, determined by the users (they determine, on exchanges, how they value the new coin versus the old coin, of which they hold, initially, equal amounts after the hard fork).

This is not the case of a soft fork.  When a majority (51%) of miners, and miners only, whatever users think, applies the soft fork, it is imposed on everyone: the minority of miners have to follow, there is only one chain, and the users have only one token and cannot "vote with their money" as there is no other token to buy.

Hard fork the longer chain wins but the older clients could choose to keep their chain if they want to. The fork with the most users is the fork that has value, that's democracy.

Soft fork, blocks are created that are not rejected by older clients but are meaningless to them, forcing them to upgrade. That's not democratic. There is no option to keep their own chain, there is no choice. That's not democracy.

Soft forks ARE democratic.  They are not consensus.  51% agreeing imposes a soft fork on everyone, with no escape.   A hard fork will keep consensus on both forks, a soft fork makes the minority shut up and obey, which is the definition of "democratic".

Like I said - it's not KISS.

A "lot" of companies "supporting" it doesn't mean the code in core right now is the best way to implement the idea.


How many we have undone are not the issue. The issue is that soft forks are not democratic - hard forks are. SegWit is a soft fork that can not be undone once it goes in to play. If it ends up being bad code no one wants to use, it stays.

Disagreed. If you've actually studied logic, which I highly doubt, you'd never state something like this.

There is a lot to SegWit and that's why so many users and companies are already supporting it.

So you're 'afraid' because it is hard to undo? Undoing it would require a HF that is non trivial. Remind me how many soft forks we undid so far?

No.

@Lauda - No, no one hurt my feelings.

My position is not based on emotions, though I have a feeling many (on both sides) positions on this topic are.

BU is a logical mechanism by which we can allow the blocks to expand as needed.

There may be some merit to SegWit, but I don't believe the current implementation of the idea is a very good one. Specifically there is no way to undo it in the future once it is done.

Clearly there is a need to do something now. We don't have time for a better SegWit-like implementation to be developed, but going with what has been developed is dangerous.

The logical solution to the very real present issue thus is to allow for the expansion of the size of the blocks.

Its nothing new in the bitcoin network now a day to have 50k+ unconfirmed transaction pending. Among all my friends in bitcoin world they had send money but its been almost 2 days and yet those transactions are pending. so we need a solution to overcome this. small small transaction should have small fees and not the smae as bigger transactions.
Here I don't mean to the amount of the Bitcoin in small . Usually in the current time we need to face many number of small amount transaction that have the equal fee charge which is equal to any big amount of Bitcoin transaction .
So here I think the network of the Bitcoin needed to some improvement for the fee system because unconfirmation problem is results into earning problem in daily buy/sell Bitcoin .

Also known as:complete bullshit. Emergent consensus is closer to being a flying unicorn than it is to being KISS (in reality):

Did they hurt your feelings?

Any malleability solution will suffice.

Hmm,
Chinese Mining Pools have ~67% of the mining,
activating Bitcoin Unlimited will have ZERO EFFECT on that Status one way or the other.

Activating Segwit , however will give complete Dominance to BlockStream's Minions and allow BTC Counterfeiting on the LN network.
Seems like to any sane person , the 100% dominance of BTC along with allowing Counterfeiting in LN, is incredibly more dangerous than anything the Chinese Miners could pull off.

Plus if someone wanted to Limit Chinese Mining Power over BTC, all that has to be done, is to add a Rolling Checkpoint to BTC.
A Rolling Checkpoint of say 12 blocks would guarantee, No Miners could ever do a history rewrite of more than 2 hours.
Problem Solved.  

There are no options to Limit Segwit & LN Control, except Never letting it be activated.  

 

Will not that be open to abuse? We now have seen the Chinese industrial miners have one interest in mind, their greed. Giving them more power could make them collude and become the Bitcoin Mafia.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5eqm2b/can_ln_work_without_segwit/

Without SegWit and LN will less on his advantages and efficiency. It seems like the rule of SegWit is a must to establish the LN.

Indeed, I am definitely agreed with you.. altcoin can't help with this problem at all, though in some other ways yes. But not on this situation either. Even there is a thousand unconfirmed  transaction in the blockchain, still the end the bitcoin users received it isn't?

at the Blockstream company meeting behind closed doors...sometime in 2015-2016:

Adam:  What should we do about the blocksize?  We definitely should stall the community as long as possible
           so can force everyone off the main chain and peddle our technology.

Greg:   Screw them...i'm really good at creating cognitive dissonance by using lots of big words.  We don't have to do anything.

Pieter:  guys, I've been working on a few ideas, ok check this out -- i'll propose a 17.7% growth per year.  If they do accept it,
           it wont hurt us too bad.  But probably the miners will reject, but we'll look like we're trying.

Greg:   I can also talk about how we need to create a fee market.  It wont really be an issue for decades but we'll ignore that.
          We'll make it seem like the network congestion is a good thing.

Adam:  I don't know.... might not be enough

Pieter:  Well i've also been working on something called Segregated Witness.  it's really complicated and it will take forever to
           actually test and implement but that's what we want right?

Adam:  Sounds good but we might have an issue.  There's been a few proposals for 2MB blocks.  How can we stop that?

Greg:   Lets take a hard stance against any hard forks.  Can we release your "Segwit" with a soft fork to support our rhetoric?

Pieter: I think so.

Adam:  Excellent.  I also have a plan to announce some "scalability workshops" that will really stall things and buy us even more time.
           We're on track here. great meeting guys.

Bitcoin unlimited allows Group consensus to determine the block size,

Segwit allows LN to work where LN can steal transaction fees from the Miners.

BTC Core Devs could have released a simple 2 MB block size increase without segwit, and the miners would have updated, and the transaction issue would be resolved for ~ year , until everyone could agree on a new direction, but Core does nothing except have segwit shrills like Lauda  & CB try and convince everyone else to join segwit.
Funny thing is you segwit shrills are losing the argument, because facts matter more than your lies.  
Maybe we should just start calling the segwit shrills, Seg-NIT-WITS (a silly or foolish person).

 

FYI:

It is KISS. I read it and was able to understand it very easily.

I use to be a core fanboy, but they have shown me their interests are clearly not in the best interest of users like me.

Seriously stop creating useless posts.

BU is not a simple block size increase. BU is 'emergent consensus', which is light years away from a KISS type solution. Ironically you advocate against Segwit because it is not 'KISS', yet you chose another implementation which is also far beyond the 'KISS' concept.

This is the very real problem.

You need to pay NameCheap to renew your domain name or TLS certificate.

You pay bitcoin to BitPay. And wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.

Do you think you will use bitcoin for that again?

Bigger blocks is a KISS solution to the problem. SegWit is not and never was KISS and I don't care if someone wants to implement it, but we need bigger blocks and we need them now.

That's why I just removed bitcoin-core and installed BU.

This is bad and I am literally angry at the core developers for allowing the issue to get to this point.

No - this isn't spammers unless the spammers are paying huge amounts for their spam. If it was spammers, people like me paying reasonable fees wouldn't have to wait hours and hours and days and hours for TXs with fees that were generous a year ago to confirm.

This is one reason why dev are very careful and cautious on its approach, They validate any updates or upgrade to avoid unnecessary fork, one of the reason why the core are having a second thought on the blocksize increase proposed by BU.