aaaand here we go again | Bitcointalksearch.org

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: NUFCrichard on April 16, 2017, 11:50:35 AM

You can complain, but BU and/or Segwit don't seem to be winning over the miners.
It looks like it is a flawed system, the turkeys have to vote for Thanks Giving, why would miners vote to increase the size, when it means that transactions will get cheaper, so they will lose out.

I think someone might just have to fork Bitcoin without having 66% or whatever is 'required'. The current situation can't really last too long, it just makes Bitcoin look bad.

I am beginning to doubt the Chinese miners concern on the network and its users. They say they support Bitcoin Unlimited because it is good for everyone for the long term but what is happening? Nothing except someone spamming the network for their convenience. Do you know who the real supporters of Core are? The better part of the miners. Blame them.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: Yakamoto on April 16, 2017, 04:01:02 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 03:54:03 PM

Quote from: European Central Bank on April 16, 2017, 01:01:52 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 01:00:30 PM

Unfortunately, they're going to follow the money now not in the future, therefore, status quo.

again, a great demonstration of how stupid they are. if status quo continues forever then there won't be any money to make.

They'll push for upgrade when the current money dries up I guess?

Some have speculated BTC price will have to drop to like 500 before they will be forced to push for upgrades. Hopefully the entire system doesn't collapse and move into alt coins before they come around.

I don't think they'd let Bitcoin fall that far down before they would start pushing for upgrades, they might at the very latest start to push forwards when the overall value is being pegged at something like $700-$800 but at $500 there would have been so much money lost by big investors that a lot of them will be left with a bad taste in their mouth and they would likely bail on the system entirely. Even down at $700 you're pushing it.

Its a fear ALL invested Bitcoiners should have, however, the miners don't seem to be worried?

Personally, I think f2pool started signaling SegWit just to insure status quo Roll Eyes

Yakamoto

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1007

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 03:54:03 PM

Quote from: European Central Bank on April 16, 2017, 01:01:52 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 01:00:30 PM

Unfortunately, they're going to follow the money now not in the future, therefore, status quo.

again, a great demonstration of how stupid they are. if status quo continues forever then there won't be any money to make.

They'll push for upgrade when the current money dries up I guess?

Some have speculated BTC price will have to drop to like 500 before they will be forced to push for upgrades. Hopefully the entire system doesn't collapse and move into alt coins before they come around.

I don't think they'd let Bitcoin fall that far down before they would start pushing for upgrades, they might at the very latest start to push forwards when the overall value is being pegged at something like $700-$800 but at $500 there would have been so much money lost by big investors that a lot of them will be left with a bad taste in their mouth and they would likely bail on the system entirely. Even down at $700 you're pushing it.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 03:54:03 PM

They'll push for upgrade when the current money dries up I guess?

Some have speculated BTC price will have to drop to like 500 before they will be forced to push for upgrades. Hopefully the entire system doesn't collapse and move into alt coins before they come around.

too late by then surely? once enough users are pissed off then they'll be either gone for good or in another coin.

there's a case of a boiling frog here a little.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: European Central Bank on April 16, 2017, 01:01:52 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 01:00:30 PM

Unfortunately, they're going to follow the money now not in the future, therefore, status quo.

again, a great demonstration of how stupid they are. if status quo continues forever then there won't be any money to make.

They'll push for upgrade when the current money dries up I guess?

Some have speculated BTC price will have to drop to like 500 before they will be forced to push for upgrades. Hopefully the entire system doesn't collapse and move into alt coins before they come around.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 16, 2017, 01:00:30 PM

Unfortunately, they're going to follow the money now not in the future, therefore, status quo.

again, a great demonstration of how stupid they are. if status quo continues forever then there won't be any money to make.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: European Central Bank on April 16, 2017, 11:56:31 AM

Quote from: NUFCrichard on April 16, 2017, 11:50:35 AM

You can complain, but BU and/or Segwit don't seem to be winning over the miners.
It looks like it is a flawed system, the turkeys have to vote for Thanks Giving, why would miners vote to increase the size, when it means that transactions will get cheaper, so they will lose out.

if we disregard bitfury and jihan wu, the majority of miners ain't signalling for anything.

if they can't figure out that increasing scaling by whatever means will ultimately make them more money then they're too stupid to have their opinion valued, but they don't appear to have one.

Unfortunately, they're going to follow the money now not in the future, therefore, status quo.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: NUFCrichard on April 16, 2017, 11:50:35 AM

You can complain, but BU and/or Segwit don't seem to be winning over the miners.
It looks like it is a flawed system, the turkeys have to vote for Thanks Giving, why would miners vote to increase the size, when it means that transactions will get cheaper, so they will lose out.

if we disregard bitfury and jihan wu, the majority of miners ain't signalling for anything.

if they can't figure out that increasing scaling by whatever means will ultimately make them more money then they're too stupid to have their opinion valued, but they don't appear to have one.

NUFCrichard

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1003

You can complain, but BU and/or Segwit don't seem to be winning over the miners.
It looks like it is a flawed system, the turkeys have to vote for Thanks Giving, why would miners vote to increase the size, when it means that transactions will get cheaper, so they will lose out.

I think someone might just have to fork Bitcoin without having 66% or whatever is 'required'. The current situation can't really last too long, it just makes Bitcoin look bad.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: FiendCoin on April 13, 2017, 11:37:37 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 13, 2017, 09:01:50 PM

almost 70k unconfirms in the mempool.

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Today's congestion brought to you by 1-meg Greg and all the Blockstream superfriends. Go team!

Everyone knows jonald_fyookball is an anti-core, anti-blockstream shill.

Well, if you didn't know, now you know Cheesy

Even if there were solid proof that Bitcoin Core were not to be blamed for these spam attacks, people like him will still shill for BU... so do not

even waste your breath. Who has the most to gain from these spam attacks? .... Miners... If Bitcoin were not pseudo anonymous, people behind

these spam attacks would have been charged with something like industrial sabotage.... but unfortunately this cannot be traced. Angry

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 13, 2017, 09:01:50 PM

Today's congestion brought to you by 1-meg Greg and all the Blockstream superfriends. Go team!

this is being done by the usual big blockers to pile false pressure on. note when it was clear that unlimited had been roundly rejected by everyone else they lost their mojo for a little while and couldn't be bothered to spam the blockchain.

zimmah

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1005

Quote from: LoyceV on April 16, 2017, 02:02:03 AM

Quote from: JGoRed on April 15, 2017, 08:36:46 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 14, 2017, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on April 14, 2017, 11:58:01 AM

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction. His vision was that all full nodes are miners. Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Transaction speed is pre-defined: 1 block every 10 minutes on average. My netbook can do that all by itself Cheesy

More miners only lead to a higher difficulty, the protocol corrects for to higher hash rate to end up with the same 1 block per 10 minutes average.

yes but no one said 1 block can only be 1 MB.

current technology allows for blocks to be far bigger than that, so why don't we?

1MB is hurting bitcoin.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: LoyceV on April 16, 2017, 02:02:03 AM

Quote from: JGoRed on April 15, 2017, 08:36:46 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 14, 2017, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on April 14, 2017, 11:58:01 AM

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction. His vision was that all full nodes are miners. Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Transaction speed is pre-defined: 1 block every 10 minutes on average. My netbook can do that all by itself Cheesy

More miners only lead to a higher difficulty, the protocol corrects for to higher hash rate to end up with the same 1 block per 10 minutes average.

I don't think that's what he is talking about. Blocktime is 10 min but transactions can be near instant with good relaying which is the situation currently.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: JGoRed on April 15, 2017, 08:36:46 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 14, 2017, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on April 14, 2017, 11:58:01 AM

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction. His vision was that all full nodes are miners. Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Transaction speed is pre-defined: 1 block every 10 minutes on average. My netbook can do that all by itself Cheesy

More miners only lead to a higher difficulty, the protocol corrects for to higher hash rate to end up with the same 1 block per 10 minutes average.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: JGoRed on April 15, 2017, 08:36:46 PM

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Yes if you read the whitepaper. Not sure if there would be slower transaction speeds without non-mining modes;
why would there be?

JGoRed

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 14, 2017, 12:40:24 PM

Quote from: LoyceV on April 14, 2017, 11:58:01 AM

Note that Satoshi only mentioned "nodes", not miners!

Satoshi did not make the distinction. His vision was that all full nodes are miners. Ordinary users will be SPV clients.

Did he? Can't help but feel that only nodes mined that there'd be much slower transaction speeds.

Quote from: BADecker on April 14, 2017, 02:24:21 PM

We are down to less than 43,000 unconfirmed, even though it was over 60,000 this morning.

Cool

Finally, perhaps the network will fix itself soon

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Blinken on April 14, 2017, 12:03:35 AM

The tumblers can go to hell. Bitcoin is not supposed to be Mastercard. It is a settlement system for people transferring significant amounts of money, not jokers buying sandwiches and playing nickel slots.

Gavin and Satoshi would disagree.

im sure Blockstream would agree with you though.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Blinken on April 14, 2017, 12:03:35 AM

Yeah, 70,000 garbage, no-fee transactions by tumblers and gambling sites.

This is not true. The required fee to get a transaction confirmed has risen substantially over the past few days based on the artificial fee market. If these were low/no fee transactions then the required fee would have stayed the same.

Quote

The tumblers can go to hell. Bitcoin is not supposed to be Mastercard. It is a settlement system for people transferring significant amounts of money, not jokers buying sandwiches and playing nickel slots.

Also not true. Even if you were to only look at transactions into and out of exchanges cold storage, then most transactions would not meet your criteria if you define "substantial sums of money" in line with the global economy.

If you look at Bitcoin transactions then almost all transactions are around your explicit definition of what Bitcoin transactions should not be.

The One

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BADecker on April 14, 2017, 08:21:16 PM

Quote from: The One on April 14, 2017, 05:35:00 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 14, 2017, 05:04:36 PM

Quote from: The One on April 14, 2017, 04:34:33 PM

There the thing. Is it not possible to automatically prune transactions data more than 1 year old? Will this then make the size of blockchain manageable?

Yes there are checkpoint blocks and Core seems to think they are a good idea for that reason.

Just to double check. By prune, i meant remove data older than 1 year.

Would it be practical to keep the full blockchain in a few storage facilities worldwide, justt so that we have a record, but limit the working blockchain to the first time every address was used, and the last 3 or 4 times it was used? Of course, if an address isn't used for more than a year, only save the first and the last.

Cool

Yes full storage can be saved by the selected few if they wish to do so.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 13, 2017, 10:08:06 PM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 13, 2017, 09:42:42 PM

It can be seen as also the miners' fault. Core does not have all the power to change everything. They have a proposal, it is Segwit. It is clear that the support behind it is not enough, then why blame everything to them? The miners are also at fault here. I have a feeling they want everything to stay as is so that they enjoy more profit if the fees remain high.

It could also be them who is spamming the network. Spend a little in fees to get a little profit in fees.

Imagine two mechanics own an autobody shop and there's a car that needs an oil change.
One guy wants to do it the simple way: drain the old oil, and pour in the new oil.
The other mechanic says "no no, we can't do it that way, we might spill some oil,
so we're going to do a fancy engineering project that will cost 5000x as much.
It will involve dissassembling the car, building a separate garage, its going to
take 2 years, but that's my plan." If the mechanics disagree, who's fault is it?

Raising the blocksize is the obvious simple move (literally 1 line of code), and it was the Satoshi's plan from the beginning.
Miners all favored it, but it was Core who blocked that with their influence, and then came out with segwit which is
literally 5000 times more complex (5000 lines of code).

You decide who is at fault.

Then why are the miners taking too long to do the hard fork to Bitcoin Unlimited now? You keep blaming it is Core but they really are powerless if it does not get the support of the miners. You also say that Bitcoin Unlimited is supported by the miners, then where are they? Where are the bigger blocks?

Topic: aaaand here we go again (Read 3752 times)