Pages:
Author

Topic: Save the Chain! Whale puts $500,000 Bounty up for grabs to miners (Read 1950 times)

hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 500
ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!
bitcoin unlimited should be called

bug unlimited, how many more bugs?

A limited number.

On the flipside, core has had a fatal bug, known for years, that they refuse to address. This is, of course, the inability to process more than ~250,000 transactions per day.
You mean the one that they've agreed to address through SegWit without screwing over node users by making them download far more data?

BU is one method of increasing transaction capacity, Core's method (SegWit) is another.  For the years that Bitcoin had been running before this hype, I bet you weren't complaining that the transaction capacity was too small.  The block size shouldn't just be increased every single time the transaction capacity does, there should be changes to make the protocol more efficient or partially offchain as well (extension blocks, LN etc), which are better for decentralisation.

Your argument is basically that people shouldn't support Core because their ideas haven't been supported yet.
legendary
Activity: 938
Merit: 1004
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
Let's activate SegWit.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 1137
All paid signature campaigns should be banned.
I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE, Carlton.

It is ironic that those that support smaller blocks whine that "this is using greed to influence miners" on the one hand but yet are perfectly happy to say that the miners greed for the larger transaction fees caused by smaller blocks is perfectly natural and OK.

So "greed is good" if it is used to supports my personal belief regarding block size but "greed is bad" if it is used to support a different belief regarding block size.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
bitcoin unlimited should be called

bug unlimited, how many more bugs?

A limited number.

On the flipside, core has had a fatal bug, known for years, that they refuse to address. This is, of course, the inability to process more than ~250,000 transactions per day.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Whatever the goals are and how well intentioned this may be, this is nothing but bribery, this is basically enticing miners with money. If things go "as planned" nobody will take up on this and honor their opinions and everything will just be as it is now.

Quote
can only be included on the blockchain if the maximum block size limit is raised,

How has this been achieved?
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
bitcoin unlimited should be called

bug unlimited, how many more bugs? Grin
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
What is the plan B of Core besides SW and if miners were to choose between a Core with 2MB support implemented and BU?

If blocksize is about to increase this way then better it be done with Core version rather than an unstable and often buggy version which is BU.

In my view this would be a hard fork and will have nothing to do with both SegWit/LN or BU.  Huh ... If they do this, it would not be permanent and

they would only do this to get the reward and then go back to whatever their original intent was. So nothing will be accomplished by doing this,

if it were not done to make a permanent change.  Angry

 Once you have a block bigger than 1MB, that's going to be the new consensus rule.  It's not like miners are going to run code that says "well for this one block we'll allow a >1mb, and all other blocks, no"
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
i am going to say it again:

BU = no one want this crap

legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
From the other hand, I don't believe that this is the way to go at all. It is a dirty way to influence miners and motivate their greed above all else.

Bitcoin is fueled by greed. Satoshi's grand innovation was in aligning everyone's greed with what is best for the system as a whole.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074
What is the plan B of Core besides SW and if miners were to choose between a Core with 2MB support implemented and BU?

If blocksize is about to increase this way then better it be done with Core version rather than an unstable and often buggy version which is BU.

In my view this would be a hard fork and will have nothing to do with both SegWit/LN or BU.  Huh ... If they do this, it would not be permanent and

they would only do this to get the reward and then go back to whatever their original intent was. So nothing will be accomplished by doing this,

if it were not done to make a permanent change.  Angry
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
My understanding of this is that the miners could reject both BU and segwit and still get the reward, right?

They could rally together and propose a new version of the software with just the one single change of raising the block size to say 2MB, rally nodes to accept just that one change, then mine the reward.

It is a hard fork, correct?

Absolutely.

The fact that adopting BU would address the blocksize war for all time makes it preferable, but the most important aspect is ridding ourselves of this stupid arbitrary production quota. I'd be more than happy -- at least until we again hit the ceiling -- with a simple maxblocksize increase.

Further, BU (as well as Classic, XT, the 8MB client, and any other client that accepts larger blocks) would be fully compatible with such a fork.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 506
What is the plan B of Core besides SW and if miners were to choose between a Core with 2MB support implemented and BU?

If blocksize is about to increase this way then better it be done with Core version rather than an unstable and often buggy version which is BU.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 502
I have mixed feelings about this.

Firstly, I think that the technical idea behind this solution to motivate miners to upgrade blocksize and constructing such transaction is brilliant.
From the other hand, I don't believe that this is the way to go at all. It is a dirty way to influence miners and motivate their greed above all else.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1036
Why is BU trying so hard to block _meaningful_ capacity increases on Bitcoin? Litecoin (etc) is showing how straightforward it is to implement Segwit and the Lightning Network as the core development community envisaged. Yet BU continues with their blockchain bloat proposal instead of solutions that would dramatically scale Bitcoin. Sad.
member
Activity: 77
Merit: 10
fake news

BU is gone. No one wants this crap
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2970
Terminated.
Thanks for sharing the link. Would definitely be a good payday for the miner that scores it.
No, it would not. It would trigger a chain split, and considering the current amount of miners in support of >1 MB blocks, the whole chain would likely get orphaned. The only thing this would cause is losses.
hero member
Activity: 718
Merit: 545
Wonderful!

Let the one WHO PAYS MORE decide the fate of Bitcoin. not at ALL short sighted!.. technically SOUND!.. backed by good, solid, arguments.. 

Who decides !? Not the smartest, or most knowledgeable, or most invested, or the Users.. or etc etc.. but the RICHEST.. HAHA!

genius. great. brilliant .. ..

..

oh.. wait.. it's a totally shit idea.. Must be Ver's..
legendary
Activity: 1042
Merit: 2805
Bitcoin and C♯ Enthusiast
This is the output that is being spent:
https://blockchain.info/tx/3cf91bf8163488bac8a884a0bc27462ef80f23f30fed23582c92f93a4e2e0fce
(You know, in case someone wanted to "follow the money").

It's fun to see a tx with 99943 new outputs!

Has anyone decoded this TX, it is too weird! I think it is spending more than it can.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
Great now we have another consensus mechanism, PoB (Proof-of-Bribery).

We can now add that to the other ugly consensus mechanisms, PoD and PoP (Proof-of-DDOS and Proof-of-Propaganda).

EDIT: Forgot PoCO (Proof-of-Contractual-Obligation).
Pages:
Jump to: