Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17833. (Read 26707804 times)

legendary
Activity: 1133
Merit: 1163
Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

Perhaps that time will come, when blockstream stops behaving like censoring dictators, suspiciously backed by captains of financial industry. Maybe when people who support them (like you) stop spewing hateful insults and using arguments from authority.

Before you insult me as well, please note that I am endorsing neither BU nor Core here, just answering your question.

On a side note...WHAT is going on with the price? Shouldn't it be breaking up or down by now?
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
when the gr8 chain-segregation comes, and it will come!
make sure you're hodling.
its gana get nutty in here soon, if your plan isn't to bunker down with ALL the bitcoins, you're gonna have a bad time. Undecided
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 11416
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).
you have it backward.

they are rushing segwit and all its glory, when it is the thing that is not needed. Clearly a system to govern all futher block size increases is nessary, in fact we could use such a system to stabilize the fee market right now.

you can go with a silly static block size with some kind of predetermined growth rate.

but that being adopted doesn't really mean anything, the responsibility to agree to and enforce (or not) is up to nodes. Nodes ultimately have the power, BU only recognizes that power, thats all.



O.k.  I did not know that there was any kind of problem with the current fees or with transactions being stalled...... and seg wit has been tested and there is a version of it that is ready for adopting.  I don't really know too much about BU being activated and tested.  I suppose if it becomes more popular, then maybe it will get adopted... before seg wit... I doubt that I have too much to do with any of that, right?  Why should I care if BU is adopted? 

I have heard a lot of good things about seg wit, so I am looking forward to that being adopted, but I have no real reason to think that BU is necessary at this time.. because it seems that there should be a certain level of priority going to get the thing activated (seg wit) that has already been tested and seems to be fairly non controversial by technical folks.
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 11416
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"
You may be correct.. no harm, no foul.. but my understanding is that there is a reason for blocksize limits, and some of it has to do with bloat and bandwith, etc etc..

The reason for the blocksize limit is that at the time it was implemented, bitcoins were worthless and blocks were easy to generate with a CPU.  Anyone could build huge blocks for no cost.  The blocksize limit was added as an antispam measure since it was basically free to spam.

Today, if you want to build a big block, you risk that the rest of the network will reject it.  If that happens, your block is orphaned and you lose the block reward (subsidy + fees).  In order to spam a large block, you have to take the risk that your block will be orphaned, costing you about $11,250 (12.5 btc/block * $900 / btc).  Not to mention, that larger blocks take longer to propagate than smaller blocks, so in a race condition, the smaller block will always win and the larger block will be orphaned.

Even at the time the blocksize was introduced, Satoshi himself intended for it to be increased at a later date (via a hard fork):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15366
Quote
It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I also responded to this one in the seg wit / bitcoin unlimited thread... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17669731
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
Block #450691 Relayed By   Bitcoin.com  Cool
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool with retarded parameters.  I'll say a prayer for you.  You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.

Ok, a passive-aggressive pussy who lacks the courage of their convictions.

You should just paste that in your signature so next time I'll know not to bother logging on ...

Open up your hate and let it flow into me.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool ... 'with BU parameters'.  I'll say a prayer for you.  You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.

Ok, a passive-aggressive pussy who lacks the courage of their convictions.

You should just paste that in your signature so next time I'll know not to bother logging on ...
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

If you want a cleaner implementation, bitcoin classic also supports a flag for specifying block size.  As for the "shit show" comment, can you explain why letting miners determine blocksize is a problem?  If it is a problem, we'd better hope they aren't able to get their hands on gcc or we are all screwed.
There are game theoretical implications of mining bigger blocks from what I understand... the 2 main issues I know of are selfish mining and undercutting
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.
Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist.


I agree.  BU miners should keep their produced blocks below 1MB for now.  A larger setting is dumb, but it won't hurt anyone but themselves.

Quote

BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!

I think I'll pass on setting up a mining pool with retarded parameters.  I'll say a prayer for you.  You obviously have a lot of hate in your heart.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

maybe you're right.

maybe its best that consensus rules are enforced by limiting the options nodes have, when it comes to the software they choose to run.

all hail core, they are the bitcoin gods, they determine what is bitcoin and what's good for it.

anyone can run their own code ... i support and encourage people compile their own code on hardware they control and trust with their own mods in it.

There is no "all hail core", you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can go on core github and argue their technical case any time they like if you have something better to add.

BU is a huge mess, stay away from it ... do your own thing, follow core, run whatever you like but BU is the biggest steaming pile of politicised shit since Ethereum.
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.
Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist.

BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!

how many BU blocks will be mined tomorrow tho?
how many BU blocks were mined today?!
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

If you want a cleaner implementation, bitcoin classic also supports a flag for specifying block size.  As for the "shit show" comment, can you explain why letting miners determine blocksize is a problem?  If it is a problem, we'd better hope they aren't able to get their hands on gcc or we are all screwed.
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!

maybe you're right.

maybe its best that consensus rules are enforced by limiting the options nodes have, when it comes to the software they choose to run.

all hail core, they are the bitcoin gods, they determine what is bitcoin and what's good for it.

what could go wrong?
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.
Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.

No wrong and wrong again ... any miner who runs BU >1MByte is wasting electricity and resources on every hash they do ... they are buying tickets for a lottery that doesn't exist.

BU is a radioactive mess, anyone who touches it is getting burned and sick. In a way they deserve it, but assholes like you who shill for BU deserve a special place in BU's hell of its own making. You should set up a BU mining farm, to show us all how dedicated to the cause you are ... pit all your money, time and resources into the biggest losing proposition in bitcoin, do it!
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
There is no gold settlement... bitcoin is the only one. You try to goto fort knox to prove you own a rightful piece of that pie after paying for its claim. Good luck!

Segwit? Personally i really need schnorr signatures for sig aggregation of multisig so i can finally do tree sigs for aliases in my system... segwit will allow that to happen. With schnorr you get a huge data savings and speed bonus.. oh and reusable addresses become possible yay for convenience and user interfaces!

Also mimblewimble + schnorr maybe means single sig blocks.. crazy huh?

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
Oh gawd ... when did this place become infested with the BU idiots again?!! FFS.

It's a walking disaster, a true shit show in terms of network systems thinking and an even worse fuck-up in terms of software implementation.

When will you guys grow a brain and at some point and leave that fucking huge shillfest mess behind already?!
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 11416
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).


What problems does segwit solve?

Today, you can already drop the signatures from your storage layer after validating them if you want to.

Even if there are some advantages to segwit, implementing it as a soft fork is dangerous.  It lets old clients think they are fully validating when they aren't.  If you are going to require 95%, you might as well hard fork and force outdated clients off the network.  Of course, the first time an old client mines a block that spends a segwit transaction under the old definition of the anyone can spend opcode you'll have a hard fork anyway (which will again just be an orphaned block since the segwit network will easily outpace the non-segwit network).


Since we seem to be getting in the weeds.. and therefore more and more apparently off topic, I made my response to this post in this other seg wit versus bitcoin unlimited thread


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17669491
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
try to disprove my theory

I can tell you why Roger Ver...

sooo you're telling me you can't discredit my stupid post. but Ver...
sr. member
Activity: 812
Merit: 250
A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards
I am also of the understanding that seg wit is a much better solution for a lot of matters and should be the next step, rather than rushing into BU when there does not really appear to be a need for it, not at the moment.. and seg wit is a better next step (at this time).
you have it backward.

they are rushing segwit and all its glory, when it is the thing that is not needed. Clearly a system to govern all futher block size increases is nessary, in fact we could use such a system to stabilize the fee market right now.

you can go with a silly static block size with some kind of predetermined growth rate.

but that being adopted doesn't really mean anything, the responsibility to agree to and enforce (or not) is up to nodes. Nodes ultimately have the power, BU only recognizes that power, thats all.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
It is just another orphaned block.

You are wrong here, either intentionally or ignorant of the situation.

It is orphaned because it violates the rules of the majority of the network instead of because of a race condition, but the consequences are the same.  Namely, the miner loses out on the subsidy + fees and any transactions not already included in a block are put back in the mempool. Nobody gets hurt except the miner who found the block.
Jump to: