Topic: Block issue SOLVED!? Extension Blocks - page 3. (Read 3473 times)

if somthing "kills" miners its toxic to bitcoin...

if bitcoin is secured by the incentive to mine 2.5BTC every time minutes then it is very INSECURE

as mining rewards drop in half it becomes absolutely mission critical to maximize fee revenue.

Whats funny is BU plans to add LN too.

The problem with them (miners) is the fear to lose incentives since with SegWit, they think it will take away lots of transaction fee from them and LN will just kill them.  Due to personal preservation, they gone blind on what is the best approach to bitcoin scaling.

extension blocks arent going to get passed, the devs seemed to be pretty split on them and feel like they are sacrificing security for community consensus.

IF everyone agrees then it can happen, so this is not a reason.

purse and bitpay..

hmm
DCG again.. hmmm

though extension blocks is another backdoor implementation.. it still does not address the issues of native key users.

because that consensus will never happen.

Why will it be a disaster if everyone is in consensus about a HF?
 

So here is a question, in order to move forward with Extension Blocks, what needs to be done and who needs to agree?

I like this part

Hard fork will be disaster for bitcoin network. Haven't gone through all technical details behind this new solution but if it is only soft fork than it is far better than BU.

That would be very good if that is true but if not then we will still be suffering from slow confirmation and many will shift to ethereum. But aside from increasing the blocksize I hope segwit could do something about the miner fees which is very high right now. But anyway if 4mb effective blocksize will be implemented successfully then it will be time for bitcoin to be used in shops not only online.

Fractional reserve banking is in any case unavoidable, it has nothing to do with crypto.  From the moment there's something that has an established value but may have real or fake, perceived difficulties in handling directly (complexity, transaction price, slowness, security, ...), nothing can stop an entity to give out an IOU of that asset that can acquire more fluidity than the original.  In order to keep that IOU in 1-1 relationship, you don't need a full reserve, you only need enough reserve to settle differences with other IOU emitters.
Read the first few chapters of "Treatise on Money" by Keynes.  He explains this (it is his argument of why banking must be regulated, but that's another story).

The only way to avoid fractional reserve banking, is to have perfectly liquid money at no difficulty of usage, at no security risk, immediate and without cost.  From the moment you introduce one of those frictions, you will give an opportunity to fractional reserve banking. 

Hell, bitcoin itself is fractional reserve banking for fiat in a certain way !  You hold bitcoins which you think are going to be "re-imbursed for fiat" in exchanges.  Only if you use bitcoin in a closed circuit, you are not using bitcoin as fiat fractional reserve banking !  But most people think of bitcoin as "representing fiat value" and they look at coinmarketcap to see how much fiat they "hold" in their "bitcoin account", thinking that at any moment, they can "withdraw fiat" for it.

is good information if about block size issue is solved
so bitcoin unlimited and fork issue can die, and not effect again about bitcoin price

Segwit does not extend block. This node only reduces the size of the transaction which means 1 block can include more transaction than usual. The size is still 1mb, no change at all. But it is really nice if they agree to activate segwit. I am looking forward to seeing litecoin activate their segwit. If that happens, bitcoin will follow litecoin's path

now that is a good proposal, which will not lead to any kind of more centralization, and if you think about it it's not very different from dynamic block

without directly change the main one, i'm more curious about how it work more precisely, they are a bit too vague about this or they can't explain it well

also there is some confusion if it need segwit or not? can someone more competent explain well this part? and why it need segwit?

Nice try.  SegWit has an effective block size of 2mb anyway, and doesn't require a hard fork which would cause the price to tumble in the short term at least and be detrimental to the network (especially with continued opposition from any major Core supporters).

If by advancement , you mean blocking the ability of the Bankers to enslave the world and its children from a Fractional Reserve Crypto system.

Good Job, BTU.  


 

Funny , no one remember the extension blocks until Clif's idea came out.
You're a good little minion and believe everything Core tells you. 



 

If only BU and the miners were not blocking advancement

Why not just implement segwit?
Many solutions are arising and still none of it is being implemented. Why?
Because  it got stuck in the debate stage.
In many years to come many solutions will once again arise then it will be forgotten again like the others.