Topic: AntPool - switch to Bitcoin Unlimited - page 2. (Read 3649 times)

Don't use /dev/random for your seeds - you can run out of entropy !!!!

Use /dev/null instead.

I propose a new Bitcoin fork, BitcoinInfinite. It expands on the excellent work of the BitcoinUnlimited developers.

• No block size limits. Miners always know what's best.
• No block reward limit. Miners know what's best, so we should let them choose how much they reward themselves when they find a block. Don't let the Blockstream Core developers chain you down!
• No difficulty retargets. The 10 minute block time imposed on us by the awful Blockstream Core developers are stupid, let the miners choose.

I am looking for developers to assist me with the development of BitcoinInfinite. Please PM me if you are able to code, it would be great if you knew how to add assertions triggered by untrusted remote inputs.

#MakeBitcoinInfiniteAgain, this is what Satoshi would have wanted!

i think it is a matter of time until other huge miner will switch to BU

it's 75% i think, and no other pool is viewwing bitcoin unlimited as a right choice, so chance are very slim man, but what will happen if bitcoin unlimited will be successful is what matter, i hope they don't screw bitcoin with this mess they are doing

Well, when Ethereum forked, the exchanges supported both chains in the fork.  So, those who were prepared had the opportunity to dump the lesser supported chain and double their holdings....There was only a brief window in which profit could be maximized because the non-sanctioned chain quickly lost value...Where there is a possibility of profiting off of a situation, there will be people committing extra brain cells to the task  <--- Believe that!

It's nowhere near time to start thinking about fees as the only block reward... that's just an excuse for bitcoin not scaling .  It's still more than 100 years until miners fully rely on tx fees, but for the sake of argument, let's say the block reward would only be fees right now. Bitcoin could probably scale up to 2MB blocks tomorrow and the fees would drop by, maybe, 20%?. Because blocks would instantly be full again, this means more money for the miners, lower fees and faster confirmation times for the users and more adoption of the bitcoin network -> higher price... Worth it IMO.

Well, as I said, I'm ready to err on the side of decentralization (as I perceive it). So, I can only argue from that point of view. I'd say we are no-where-close to going beyond a reasonable price yet you have people crying bloody murder!

The early block subsidy has, in my opinion, spoiled a lot of users. They are used to not having to pay for security because the inflation did it for them. Well... the coins had to be dispersed somehow, and now it's time to start moving away from the block subsidy to a direct cost to the user. If we wait longer, we will just have a larger group of people ready to cry bloody murder and it will be even more painful.

If BU can successfully fork and becomes the majority I will sell my cloud mining shares and exit from hashnest.

See the bolded part above.  This is what concerns me (and others) when it comes to the scaling debate.  When we, for example, restrict the transaction throughput, the option to be censorship proof  may no longer exist at a reasonable price.

 

I would say the reason Bitcoin has value is because it offers something that other solutions don't offer. In my mind, that's censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. We have these things thanks to decentralization. It's not simply "utility", it's unique utility. Sure, we can each have our opinion about this, but that is probably going to frame the entire debate.


Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere. I've never researched those things because I don't care. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. I'm willing to pay handsomely and wait a long time to append the block chain because I place a very high value on the properties decentralization affords. That's why I would rather err on the side of decentralization, even if it harms adoption. If people want cheap micro-transactions, and that can be arranged by adding a layer on top of Bitcoin that can be removed should the need arise, who am I to complain, and why should I care if those "coffee" purchases aren't censorship-proof?

Life is about trade-offs. Everything can't be all things to everyone! Imagining that we can have censorship-proof micro-transactions for sub-pennies with a system that requires full nodes to maintain a ledger which must record every transaction since it's creation is absurd to me!

Here is one article on LN:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/

Might be useful to open a channel for small payments. I wouldn't want all my bitcoin held on a channel, so more on-chain block capacity is required.

I'd hate to be a LN coder. The consequences of a bug could be horrendous.

I would disagree that TPS doesn't make Bitcoin valuable because high TPS = widespread use, which one of the key characteristsics (in addition to fungibilitiy, portability, etc) that make something valuable as money. Iow, its 'utility'.  But we can agree to disagree on that if you like.

I was hoping you can tell me more about the off chain solutions since you seem to know something.   I guess my question would be:  If its stored somewhere off chain, who is storing it, who is securing it, and if its not miners, isn't that a trusted third party, which is a form of centralization?

What are the chances they (BU) actually get to the 60%-70% that's required to activate?

Yes, Antpool is a huge player in the game. Outside of them though, I don't see many big names supporting Unlimited. Miners, exchanges, nodes,..really anyone outside of a selectly small group of people.

Unfortunately these are the worst news I could listen. Personally speaking, I do not care so much about the price as the future of the currency because people give value to bitcoin and not miners. I wonder under what logic Jihan Wu went into this decision. Obviously, if the price collapses money will be losen not only by the users but also from miners too because their operating costs are constant. Therefore, Jihan is very risky and played "all in" or is too sure that segwit supporters will not have time to react and finally will accept his movement. In addition, the publication of UASF played a significant role to antpool's decision.

Yep, my mistake.

For starters, Bitcoin isn't valuable because of TPS, it's valuable because of the unique properties decentralization provides.

Next, if scaling is done off chain, then the "scaled" transaction data is... wait for it... off chain. They are aggregated on an additional layer which can be removed should the need arise.

[ ] You understood the context he was writing in. (Hint: LN)


Rico

if off chain scaling is used, where does all that transaction data go? 

Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value).

Edit: Reading comprehension issues. I blame lack of sleep!

If antpool has switched to Bitcoin Unlimited then its just a matter of time when other miner pools will also shift to BU. It is clear now that in the end the consensus will favor Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Unlimited though I am not very clear of how it works but as long as it can give solution to the current problems on transaction fees and long confirmation then it is god to go. Even if bitcoin unlimited will win the price of bitcoin will not climb down as what some of us are thinking. When the miners fee goes down and the transaction confirmation become faster the price of bitcoin will start climbing again.