Save the Chain! Whale puts $500,000 Bounty up for grabs to miners

Nagadota

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

ClaimWithMe - the most paying faucet of all times!

Quote from: jbreher on May 04, 2017, 12:45:41 PM

Quote from: felipehermanns on May 04, 2017, 11:17:39 AM

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.

Franz_Huber

legendary

Activity: 938

Merit: 1004

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

Let's activate SegWit.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1138

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.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: felipehermanns on May 04, 2017, 11:17:39 AM

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.

unamis76

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?

felipehermanns

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

bitcoin unlimited should be called

bug unlimited, how many more bugs? Grin

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Kprawn on May 04, 2017, 10:26:44 AM

Quote from: ImHash on May 04, 2017, 10:08:57 AM

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"

felipehermanns

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

i am going to say it again:

BU = no one want this crap

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Sundark on May 04, 2017, 10:01:32 AM

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.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: felipehermanns on May 04, 2017, 09:49:39 AM

BU is gone.

^^fake news.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: ImHash on May 04, 2017, 10:08:57 AM

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

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: BurtW on May 04, 2017, 04:42:53 AM

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.

ImHash

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.

Sundark

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.

ebliever

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.

felipehermanns

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

fake news

BU is gone. No one wants this crap

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: bitkilo on May 03, 2017, 07:56:27 PM

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.

spartacusrex

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..

Coding Enthusiast

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.

AngryDwarf

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).

Topic: Save the Chain! Whale puts $500,000 Bounty up for grabs to miners (Read 1960 times)