Topic: KanoPool kano.is lowest 0.9% fee 🐈 since 2014 - Worldwide - 2432 blocks - page 936. (Read 5352429 times)

Supply and Demand works just fine.  So we, and Bitcoin, can wait for a proper block size scaling solution.

To correct the problem that SegWit is supposed to solve is easy, just remove the P2SH fiasco.  It was an idea, not a good one, but it obviously failed so just correct that one error.

Block! by blockmines 3 in a row!
S9v2

The problem is that folks such as this have no critical thinking skills. They are going to continue their mindless rants and agenda pushes regardless of how many times you point out the obvious because they are simply incapable of being reasoned with.

SegWit is not a block size solution.

SegWit is a bunch of code changes to change the Core screwup called P2SH

SegWit is one way to resolve malleability. That is it's design - even it's name is that: Segregated Witness.
What is that name? Segregating the witness data from the transaction hash so that the crappy designed P2SH doesn't have malleability.
So what if it has malleability? That is an accounting issue. If you write software that allows P2SH transactions, then you need to understand that transaction numbers can change. No big deal for anyone but a moron who who shouldn't be coding.

Unfortunately, that isn't the only code in SegWit.
Core decided to pretend it was a block size solution to make people think it was necessary.
I created a thread on that subject ... asking why is SegWit necessary ... I'm not convinced anyone has given an answer to that ...

Core has stated clearly that they want the Lightning Network. That is their road map.
SegWit means they can do LN - they need the changes that they call 'SegWit' to allow them to do LN.

LN's design is to the detriment of mining.
Mining is the design of Bitcoin - that is how it works - that is in the original design document - that is why we are here.
If you want some other coin, then go create it ... ... ... and get your great following to use that coin

Just coz you want to rant and rave about your person opinion about what you want, doesn't mean that the rest of the world wants what you want.
Core aren't getting their vote. So they come up with "Hey lets force everyone to do what we want"
Funny, I always though Bitcoin was a Peer2Peer transaction system, not a centrally controlled, by Core, source of money for Core's pockets.

Stop posting here ... as I have told you MANY times.

yep, crypto exceeded pound sterling at 87.5 bil (2008 numbers). This counts ONLY the paper money, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circulation_(currency)

There is some serious money in the game.
91 billion market cap is amazing.

All of the above including quotes are just individual persons opinions.
Respectfully, I disagree, but I agree that it is, perhaps, too late. There is also a possibility that bitcoin goes myspace on us. That would suck big time.
I am not sure what will happen, though. Maybe one chain/version would clearly win (by a knockout), but most likely not.
Last time I thought that bitcoin is about to go down was at $1100 and here we are at $2500, so I am joining the "my guesses suck some of the time" club.

I dinna think you're that far off on that one, laddie...LOL...  

EDIT: What I mean is...right on, Phil...

Segwit is the death of btc  .

Btc has delayed a long time  to do anything at all.

alt coins now own more then 54 % of the wealth of cryptocoins

http://coinmarketcap.com/


The scaling delay   may be very good for alt coins  .

Well we will see what happens if segwit is forced onto btc.

My guess is BTC  will lose  a lot of value  to alts.

Of course my guesses really suck some of the time.

I'm with Biffa on this one. That's always been the end game in my view...mining for tx fees. The other variables...spot, network activity, etc...only make it look a bit better.

Segwit is not the answer. I do code, and I don't like what I see. I think Kano and I share that view. 

I'm afraid Bitcoin still requires 2-3 hard forks until we get to a point of maturity where it's no longer required.
In terms of scaling alone, no single number for base block size will be ideal for eternity. To avoid having to fork multiple times in the future for this single reason, liquidating the block size with a BIP100-like solution would be a mandatory first hard fork to implement.

Did you check SegWit code? I don't understand much of it, do not program c++, but I can tell that monstrosity is HUGE for a soft fork . Just for safety reasons alone, it would make sense to attempt to trim 40% of code and release the exact same functionality as a kosher clean hard fork.

Damn you put another crazy on ignore and someone comes along and quotes em 

I remember when I started mining bitcoin, I always thought it was cool that there was only a limited number of them and the plan that once we got down to the last few halvings and last coins were either gone or so few and far between they might as well be, well we would basically be mining for transaction fees alone. That always appealed to me. I don't see how introducing a tech that allows moving transaction fees off the blockchain and allowing other people to profit from it is going to keep miners, who lets face it, have been the life blood of this technology, interested for long.

Same reason why any miner with half a brain cell wouldn't mine at a pool that keeps the tx fees.

Something that increases the block size and decreases confirmation times sounds good though, but it would be ideal to accomplish that without a hard fork if possible

So lets deploy a complex anti-tank missile system to take down a bird?
Just give the code that disables covert ASICBOOST, and I don't think anyone would mind if Kano pool signaled in support.

How long can it take to provide this code? 10 minutes for 1 or 2 lines of code? I come to think the crazy UASF boys want to refrain from providing anti ASICBOOST code as a standalone fix so they can continue promoting SegWit as the solution. I'm not exactly sure where our pool leader stands. For me personally, signalling for SegWit activation as a standalone soft fork upgrade is a no-go. Signalling for NY agreement, or similar fork with broad consensus would be a much better action to take.

Everyone ready for the biggest difficulty jump since January? And the second biggest since Feb 2016?  

Got lube? 

Block by blockmines!  This is our 5th for BLOCK SATURDAY! 

Fanboy spam much? 

Thanks for the response man, can't wait till those new features are implemented

Posted:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19327650

Basically it's not really that much of an issue, coz if they mine below dust nothing happens ... and it's been that way forever

When that's done (in some far distant galaxy) it wont be an issue.
However, people mining with tiny miners ... well they're gonna get next to nothing on any pool, at least here when they finally get it, it will be worth something

What do you think @kano?

I knew as soon as I left to go to the building supply place the pool would light it up with our 4th on BLOCK SATURDAY!