...
Give us a break.
You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania
Maybe. But then you could always leave too.
But that never seems to happen.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 97. (Read 2032266 times)
Give us a break.
You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania
Maybe. But then you could always leave too.
But that never seems to happen.
...
Give us a break.
You're getting dangerously close to Anonymint-levels of megalomania
oh wonderful. just look at what they're doing to our beloved Bitcoin:
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/972
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things. Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise.
Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913
^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.
"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.
Another relevant dataset from today:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html
Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor
I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.
I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.
I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.
I notice Frap.doc has no comment (much less spin) on Szabo's tweet about research into vulnerability vs blocksize trade-offs or the maximum throughput survey (thx for that BTW), except to retreat into a great wall of text about generalities and meaningless platitudes such as "the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood."
Talk about cherry-picking your responses.
Is Frap.doc's 'zeal of the recent Gavinista convert' beginning to wear off?
what was interesting is that the author showed up on Reddit stating flat out he is a bigger block proponent while admitting it's not entirely clear what would happen if they were implemented now. he, and every other conservative, can sit there and advocate for more research but that doesn't invalidate my pt that every other bear paper on mining has been wrong. we haven't seen all the selfish mining attacks Eyal outlined. why is that? you're supposedly a geek, explain that for all of us. crickets.......
so yeah, the Zohar paper is probably just the next one to go into the bin of fails. if you'll notice, i'm in that Reddit thread making the argument that academic papers always fail to consider how participants can react. i'm not getting any push back either.
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things. Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise.
Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913
^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.
"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.
Another relevant dataset from today:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html
Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor
I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.
I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.
I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.
I notice Frap.doc has no comment (much less spin) on Szabo's tweet about research into vulnerability vs blocksize trade-offs or the maximum throughput survey (thx for that BTW), except to retreat into a great wall of text about generalities and meaningless platitudes such as "the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood."
Talk about cherry-picking your responses.
Is Frap.doc's 'zeal of the recent Gavinista convert' beginning to wear off?
my impression of this whole debate is that no one really knows for sure what's going on. esp the CS guys who didn't contribute a lick to Satoshi's original code or assumptions.
the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood. not to mention, distributed/decentralized systems like Bitcoin. so many smart technical ppl missed the boat on the investment part of Bitcoin early on b/c of extreme skepticism across the board esp regarding the technical system. even insiders. they didn't and still don't fully understand the network topology and we see new information uncovered everyday from researchers like Andrew Miller to the selfish mining folks like Sirer to today's report from Zohar. as evidence for what i say, all we have to do is go back over the dozen or so academic papers over the last 6 yrs that have outlined detailed attacks based on various unfounded assumptions and a ton of math. so far the result? nothing. they've all been wrong. i was one of the first to start talking about the game theory around Bitcoin and mining. not that i'm a game theory expert or anything but it was clear to me that there are a lot more disciplines intersecting at the Bitcoin nexus that make it successful, not just the CS. namely, finance, group psychology, CS, math, networking, engineering, the speculative mind, big money, politics, etc. it appears no one really has a grasp on all the components. so yeah, i get a little defensive when new and esp existing ppl from one small corner of the space start going around and making statements as if they're facts. i'll listen to what they say but if it doesn't make sense, i will challenge them. iow, i know enough about Bitcoin to make me dangerous.
so yeah, i extrapolate out this "revelation" even to the current set of core devs who are holding up the block size debate. i think one of the inviolable principles behind Bitcoin are that as many tx's should be kept on MC to replace block rewards going forward. otherwise, how will miners get paid to confirm tx's and provide the security and decentralization the network desperately needs in the long run? thus we should try, even at some risk, to expand the block size to as large as we can to accommodate user growth worldwide as no one can predict how fast tech improvements will grow with time to mitigate the effects of slower propagation. which also is another principle Bitcoin should try to achieve; that being maximum user decentralization worldwide so as to minimize the ability of any one gvt to intervene.
i think Bitcoin is awfully close to achieving this. if only we can get bigger blocks simply b/c they can provide the growth we want now. and i say now, b/c as i've been quite nicely forecasting for all of you for a long time now (4y), the financial markets and pm markets are now undergoing the suffering i've predicted and demonstrated in real time. and i really mean nicely b/c i don't have to do this. i could just simply lock the thread down and sit here behind my computer silently and pick all of you off as a swing trader timing the cycles or by injecting alot of financial obfuscation like many others do. some of you might actually want to say thank you every once in a while instead of trolling the hell out of me for trying to help.
Bitcoin needs to be ready to accept all that fiat flowing out of those mkts so something needs to be done.
the internet is still a relatively new phenomenon that is not well understood. not to mention, distributed/decentralized systems like Bitcoin. so many smart technical ppl missed the boat on the investment part of Bitcoin early on b/c of extreme skepticism across the board esp regarding the technical system. even insiders. they didn't and still don't fully understand the network topology and we see new information uncovered everyday from researchers like Andrew Miller to the selfish mining folks like Sirer to today's report from Zohar. as evidence for what i say, all we have to do is go back over the dozen or so academic papers over the last 6 yrs that have outlined detailed attacks based on various unfounded assumptions and a ton of math. so far the result? nothing. they've all been wrong. i was one of the first to start talking about the game theory around Bitcoin and mining. not that i'm a game theory expert or anything but it was clear to me that there are a lot more disciplines intersecting at the Bitcoin nexus that make it successful, not just the CS. namely, finance, group psychology, CS, math, networking, engineering, the speculative mind, big money, politics, etc. it appears no one really has a grasp on all the components. so yeah, i get a little defensive when new and esp existing ppl from one small corner of the space start going around and making statements as if they're facts. i'll listen to what they say but if it doesn't make sense, i will challenge them. iow, i know enough about Bitcoin to make me dangerous.
so yeah, i extrapolate out this "revelation" even to the current set of core devs who are holding up the block size debate. i think one of the inviolable principles behind Bitcoin are that as many tx's should be kept on MC to replace block rewards going forward. otherwise, how will miners get paid to confirm tx's and provide the security and decentralization the network desperately needs in the long run? thus we should try, even at some risk, to expand the block size to as large as we can to accommodate user growth worldwide as no one can predict how fast tech improvements will grow with time to mitigate the effects of slower propagation. which also is another principle Bitcoin should try to achieve; that being maximum user decentralization worldwide so as to minimize the ability of any one gvt to intervene.
i think Bitcoin is awfully close to achieving this. if only we can get bigger blocks simply b/c they can provide the growth we want now. and i say now, b/c as i've been quite nicely forecasting for all of you for a long time now (4y), the financial markets and pm markets are now undergoing the suffering i've predicted and demonstrated in real time. and i really mean nicely b/c i don't have to do this. i could just simply lock the thread down and sit here behind my computer silently and pick all of you off as a swing trader timing the cycles or by injecting alot of financial obfuscation like many others do. some of you might actually want to say thank you every once in a while instead of trolling the hell out of me for trying to help.
Bitcoin needs to be ready to accept all that fiat flowing out of those mkts so something needs to be done.
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things. Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise.
Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913
^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.
"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.
Another relevant dataset from today:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html
Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor
I'm flattered that you think this whole debate hinges around me but I also love how you cherry pick your discussion.
I noticed that Jameson Lopp, well known CS and author of the killer Statoshi website wants to look at the code. We'll see if he gets it because it matters.
I noticed you didn't answer the usability question I posed earlier.
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things. Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise.
Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913
^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.
"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.
Another relevant dataset from today:
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009567.html
Quote
On this day, the Bitcoin network was crawled and reachable nodes surveyed to find their maximum throughput in order to determine if it can safely support a faster block rate. Specifically this is an attempt to prove or disprove the common statement that 1MB blocks were only suitable slower internet connections in 2009 when Bitcoin launched, and that connection speeds have improved to the point of obviously supporting larger blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
...
This does not support the theory that the network has the available bandwidth for increased block sizes, as in its current state 37% of nodes would fail to upload a 20MB block to a single peer in under 20 seconds (referencing a number quoted by Gavin). If the bar for suitability is placed at taking only 1% of the block time (6 seconds) to upload one block to one peer, then 69% of the network fails for 20MB blocks. For comparison, only 10% fail this metric for 1MB blocks.
I'll leave it to cypherdoc to spin this one in his favor
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
Bitcoin is by design reactionary, not merely conservative, in its approach to changing things. Changes are considered an attack until proven otherwise.
Not one iota of security will be traded for adoption, no matter the preferences of In-Q-Tel, Sand Hill Road, and their sigint-veteran toadies.
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/624316213473062913
^That^ is the type of computer science research we need more of in order to make informed decisions regarding block size.
"Throwing the hammer down" and declaring UX the hill upon Bitcoin must die is the kind of drama-queen exaggeration we need to calm down and eschew.
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
I think that many of the more technically inclined people recognize certain dangers that others do not. That is the primary reason why there is a rift between those actually doing development and those who are primarily trying to capitalize on the existence of distributed crypto-currencies.
I'm personally a dedicated '1mb blocker' (at this time), but I'm not especially 'conservative.' I'd actually be happy to see a hard-fork which completely re-designed the consensus mechanism to foster a more robust 'distributed' aspect to the 'distributed crypto-currency' aspect of things. This based on where I see the most significant risks of failure, and in the comfort to know that there is finally a very strong move toward scaling (and providing other services) via an implementation of sub-ordinate chains.
iCE, didn't you say you own Hecla? geez man, you gotta get outta that thing. once it breaks the red support line, it's lights out:
Hecla's been around for 100 years. They know how to hibernate in bear markets, and historically offer the best leverage to silver.
I'm investing/accumulating for the long term, not day trading. Let's hope they can snarf up Wildcat for pennies/oz before the market turns bullish.
Nobody will belive that bitcoin is Up lol.
It is going to fall fast than ever i have seen in the past.
gold is unlimited all over the universe, that's why gold is collapsing.
It is going to fall fast than ever i have seen in the past.
gold is unlimited all over the universe, that's why gold is collapsing.
CNBC: Bitcoin's 'war' could threaten its survival
Jeffy G forpresident dictator.
Quote from: CNBC
Bitcoin, the digital currency technology with an ecosystem attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is struggling through an existential crisis.
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
Jeffy G for
yes, i am glad Garzik recognizes the problem:
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
so i didn't see who was actual backing the "1MB blockers for now" in this "war" I saw these two fores as aligned not pitted gained each-other: " the business community against the often ideological early adopters"
not to mention I was under the impression the largely Western Developers were alighted with the Chinese [mining] constituencies.
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
another way of saying that inertia is much easier to perpetuate with FUD.
CNBC: Bitcoin's 'war' could threaten its survival
Jeffy G forpresident dictator.
Quote from: CNBC
Bitcoin, the digital currency technology with an ecosystem attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is struggling through an existential crisis.
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
Jeffy G for
yes, i am glad Garzik recognizes the problem:
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
so i didn't see who was actual backing the "1MB blockers for now" in this "war" I saw these two fores as aligned not pitted gained each-other: " the business community against the often ideological early adopters"
not to mention I was under the impression the largely Western Developers were alighted with the Chinese [mining] constituencies.
I think the vast majority of the bitcoin ecosystem want bitcoin to scale in the safest manner possible. The '1mb blockers' seem to only have any sway in the argument because of the naturally conservative approach to changing things in Core.
CNBC: Bitcoin's 'war' could threaten its survival
Jeffy G forpresident dictator.
Quote from: CNBC
Bitcoin, the digital currency technology with an ecosystem attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is struggling through an existential crisis.
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
Jeffy G for
yes, i am glad Garzik recognizes the problem:
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
so i didn't see who was actual backing the "1MB blockers for now" in this "war" I saw these two fores as aligned not pitted gained each-other: " the business community against the often ideological early adopters"
not to mention I was under the impression the largely Western Developers were alighted with the Chinese [mining] constituencies.
What is going to be fabulous is when this issue is eventually resolved (either way) and a majority consensus is achieved among independent individuals, all without having government experts (such as a FED Board of Directors) or rulers deciding on the direction. That will be powerful and have wider implications than I think many realize. It will be a model to be repeated in many other areas.
I like this idea, I'm so excited I can hardly wait, its could very well take a long time (like well into 2016) and I'm not even sure well know until it relay happens. There is so much FUD, that i dont even think the market and the public at large will realize this implication until its baked in to the price.
This will be a big milestone worth celebrating in my mind, well considering the move is less centralized decision making, the more controversial the majority consensus verdict, the better for Bitcoins long term success.
CNBC: Bitcoin's 'war' could threaten its survival
Jeffy G forpresident dictator.
Quote from: CNBC
Bitcoin, the digital currency technology with an ecosystem attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is struggling through an existential crisis.
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
Jeffy G for
yes, i am glad Garzik recognizes the problem:
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
CNBC: Bitcoin's 'war' could threaten its survival
Jeffy G forpresident dictator.
Quote from: CNBC
Bitcoin, the digital currency technology with an ecosystem attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is struggling through an existential crisis.
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
Jeffy G for
What is going to be fabulous is when this issue is eventually resolved (either way) and a majority consensus is achieved among independent individuals, all without having government experts (such as a FED Board of Directors) or rulers decide on a direction by fiat. That will be powerful and have wider implications than I think many realize. It will be a model to be repeated in many other areas beyond money.
CNBC: Bitcoin's 'war' could threaten its survival
Jeffy G forpresident dictator.
Quote from: CNBC
Bitcoin, the digital currency technology with an ecosystem attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, is struggling through an existential crisis.
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
And what may to outsiders seem like petty squabbling about a single number actually has major financial implications and could even threaten the very survival of the cryptocurrency.
The argument—which is pitting Chinese constituencies against largely Western developers, the business community against the often ideological early adopters, and programmer against programmer—centers on a simple number in the global bitcoin system. But if the various parties can't come to an agreement, the whole network could splinter, wrecking its major selling points of security and decentralization.
"There is literally a war going on right now in the bitcoin world," Marco Streng, CEO of Genesis Mining, told CNBC last month.
What's the issue?
There are two major questions facing the technology: Who is bitcoin for? And who gets to decide?
Most of the early adopters saw appeal in bitcoin as a decentralized digital currency—(to over-simplify the promise) a sort of virtual gold that could not be touched by governments, banks or corporations. But in seeking to create the perfect system for such a currency, bitcoin's early creators also created a technology that has wide-ranging applications.
That technology is called the "blockchain" (CNBC has gone in depth into how it works), and this is basically what it does: It can record any information in a secure way, and make that information both public and unchangeable—doing this without relying on any central authority. Banks, stock exchanges, payment companies and others have already begun exploring how this can be used in their own businesses.
The issue at hand is about the structure of bitcoin's blockchain (which is composed of "blocks" of data with each block referring back to the preceding chunk of information—thereby creating a chain). The community is arguing about how big the maximum block size should be: The current max is one megabyte, which only allows for about seven transactions per second—far too few for most businesses currently investing in the technology.
This speed is a "roadblock to bitcoin growth," Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology, wrote in a recent paper. (Visa, for comparison, says its network can handle more than 24,000 transactions per second.)
"Any responsible business projecting capacity usage into the future sees the system reaching an absolute maximum capacity, with this speed limit in place," he wrote. "Increasing or removing this limit will encourage businesses to view bitcoin as scalable and capable of supporting millions of new users."
...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/bitcoins-war-could-threaten-its-survival.html
Jeffy G for
Jump to: