Topic: Segregated Witness vs Bitcoin Unlimited vs Do Nothing - page 2. (Read 3117 times)
Will be nice to see BU fork away forever.
if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5..
If the block is orphaned after wasting hash power to find it, then should not we call it losing?nope.
if it doesnt get accepted and doesnt stay in the chain. then the pool never had it
there are 20 pools and only one block gets it in an average of 10 minutes
put it this way
EG thats why if a pool put in a reward of lets say 1000000btc..
it would get rejected.. does not mean it had it and lost it.. it just means it never had 1000000btc
yes it wasted hash trying..
but doesnt mean it lost 12.5btc or 1000000btc.. it just means it didnt win..
when you play the lottery.. you dont lose millions.. you just dont win, someone else does
That's a different explanation than the original course of discussion. I said...
I wonder, which pool will take the risk of losing 12.5 BTC by raising the block size?
The question of loss is coming here because one pool need to take the risk of raising block size. There is not much extra reward for this risk other than some minuscule mining fee. It is BIG risk vs little reward and hence I said risk of losing 12.5 BTC.
if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5..
If the block is orphaned after wasting hash power to find it, then should not we call it losing?nope.
if it doesnt get accepted and doesnt stay in the chain. then the pool never had it
there are 20 pools and only one block gets it in an average of 10 minutes
put it this way
EG thats why if a pool put in a reward of lets say 1000000btc..
it would get rejected.. does not mean it had it and lost it.. it just means it never had 1000000btc
yes it wasted hash trying..
but doesnt mean it lost 12.5btc or 1000000btc.. it just means it didnt win..
when you play the lottery.. you dont lose millions.. you just dont win, someone else does
you only gain 12.5btc after 100 confirms.
I dont get this 100 confirms part. Does BU has such logic?Newly minted coins are not spendable until after 100 confirmations. Standard protocol.
if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5..
If the block is orphaned after wasting hash power to find it, then should not we call it losing?you only gain 12.5btc after 100 confirms.
I dont get this 100 confirms part. Does BU has such logic? Others are at their will to follow or not. I wonder, which pool will take the risk of losing 12.5 BTC by raising the block size?
unlike core that bypass node consensus. bu and other dynamic and >1mb blocks wont make blocks over 1mb unless they have both node and pool consensus.
dont start thinking they are gonna make a 4 or 8mb block instantly .. thats more reddit fud drama creating false narative
they will start slow like 1.000250 and test the water for issues (like the 500kb level db issue core had in 2013) , orphan risk and timing to propagate.. and slowly increase increments when demed safe and it actually forms blockheight
logically and naturally.
which if the block does not get accepted its not "losing 12.5" .. its just not winning /gaining 12.5..
you only gain 12.5btc after 100 confirms. so you cant really risk losing 12.5 unless you had it in the first place
From what I see SegWit is gaining more and more %.
95% in next 7 month is just impossible.
95% in any amount of time is impossible. They will never get past the amount of hash power that is for bigger blocks. BU will pick up hashing power once it is firmly over 40% that will send it over 50%. Then things will probably go quickly as the rest of miners will be pressured to also accept big blocks.
But, I wonder, who'll bell the cat? I mean, what I understand, BU may gain 75% hash power and still operate as 1mb, until a pool owner raises the limit to 2mb or 8mb... whatever. Others are at their will to follow or not. I wonder, which pool will take the risk of losing 12.5 BTC by raising the block size?
From what I see SegWit is gaining more and more %.
95% in next 7 month is just impossible.
95% in any amount of time is impossible. They will never get past the amount of hash power that is for bigger blocks. BU will pick up hashing power once it is firmly over 40% that will send it over 50%. Then things will probably go quickly as the rest of miners will be pressured to also accept big blocks.
From what I see SegWit is gaining more and more %.
95% in next 7 month is just impossible.
From what I see SegWit is gaining more and more %. Just look at the numbers for the last 24h:
And imho the numbers are not even 100% "correct" because there are pools (like Slush) which are signaling sometimes SegWit, sometimes BU, so while now they "split" their hashrate (I am not sure how are they calculated), they will just join the winning side at the end.
Slush doesn't calculate anything to split their hashrate. They give each individual user/miner the option to vote and signal for whatever they want. They can also vote to let the pool operator decide what he feels best.And imho the numbers are not even 100% "correct" because there are pools (like Slush) which are signaling sometimes SegWit, sometimes BU, so while now they "split" their hashrate (I am not sure how are they calculated), they will just join the winning side at the end.
Take a look at this: https://slushpool.com/stats/?c=btc
Hashing support for segwit goes up, price goes up:
-snip-
As much as I would like attribute the current bullish trend to rising SegWit support, it is most likely not the case.-snip-
Price of bitcoin is growing because all major Chinese Bitcoin exchanges + Bitfinex stopped accepting US dollar deposits and withdrawals.
Exchanges blame banks for problems with wired transfers. No one knows for sure what is going on.
This situation caused BTC price to grow due to increased demand because traders buy BTC to withdraw it and there is no way to sell it.
Some people value the immutability of bitcoin as a very attractive feature, specially if you intend to use bitcoin as a long term store of value where you expect the price going up.
Sure, I want to see bitcoin with segwit and lightning network to enable instant payments and see bitcoin getting used in over the counter real life situations, but other people don't care about scaling bitcoin, they just want it to be as immutable as possible. Lack of consensus may lead us into a split tho, and hodlers shouldn't have that on their plans.
Sure, I want to see bitcoin with segwit and lightning network to enable instant payments and see bitcoin getting used in over the counter real life situations, but other people don't care about scaling bitcoin, they just want it to be as immutable as possible. Lack of consensus may lead us into a split tho, and hodlers shouldn't have that on their plans.
There's immutable and then there's ossified. Many people would be more comfortable with something immutable that had capacity baked in. Then it's welcome to be as immutable as fuck.
Well, the possibility for it to mutate is there: 95% hashrate agreement. Thought luck with that as we all know.
What are the alternatives? UASF, as we also know, can lead to a chain split, which can be a disaster for the price, but maybe it's our only way out from Jihan's monopoly.
We are assuming that the rest of the miners don't rebel against the PoW change and start mining BUcoin tho... so don't count victory.
It's a extremely tricky situation. I wish that we could at least get segwit, then LN. But even after we get LN, we would need eventual blocksize increases, otherwise optionally doing onchain transactions would be impossible, and LN functionality itself I assume would suffer eventually, without said blocksize increase.
Unfortunately, none of the "flexible blocksize" proposals work, so we will see situations like this every X years.
Why?
The more i look into segwit, the i am not liking it. LN is a no no for me.
The current impasse can be solve with a straight forwards 1mb to 2mb. Then up to 3mb when the time comes. In the meanwhile the developers can go back to the drawing board.
I always wondered why we still have (beside SegWit, bitcoin unlimited and undecided miners) another option signaled: 8 MB blocks.
What BW Pool is thinking? This option is totally, not going to work, it is condemned to fail. They know it, we know it. Then Why?
What BW Pool is thinking? This option is totally, not going to work, it is condemned to fail. They know it, we know it. Then Why?
I accept 16MB blocks, so why wouldn't it work? If they generated an 8MB block, my home PC would validate it in seconds, in the background while I'm gaming.
I can validate that while video editing. The trick is to use one drive for editing and another drive for Bitcoin.
How much does Roger pays you for each FUD post you make? $1 $10? If you know so much about it why dont you share youre opinion on GitHub? You wont do that because youre troll ass will be destroyed over there.
I know you have been rejected Franky1, youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youre self.
I know you have been rejected Franky1, youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youre self.
i do not get paid, sponsored or handed any funds for my opinions or comments. nor am i paid by roger or any other bitcoin corporation or project.
i am self sufficient which means i don't have to 'toe the line' or kiss ass.
your right the censorship of cores github is high.. but that just reveals the problem..
lack of independence and obvious censorship.
there are over a dozen implementations that all get REKT. and lots of independent devs that have their opinions quashed at the door.
thats not the fault of independence. thats the fault of core not being as open as they falsely proclaim.
if you think that centralised control is cores asset. then you have failed to understand what the whole point of bitcoins ethos/invention was originally.
Why do we still debate about which one is better: SegWit or BU?!
Apparently no one cares about the community's opinions, only Hash-rate is the one speaking out loud. If you want your opinion to be heard, why don't you get some hashrate and then decide what you want?! And the sitting ducks who would flow with the river, they should decide what they want now and spare us this fucking headache.
Apparently no one cares about the community's opinions, only Hash-rate is the one speaking out loud. If you want your opinion to be heard, why don't you get some hashrate and then decide what you want?! And the sitting ducks who would flow with the river, they should decide what they want now and spare us this fucking headache.
i laugh at that statement
along with 'core are the best team'
if everything is perfect and core are the best team.. then there is no need for segwit, there would be no debate
because there are no problems and bitcoin is already in utopia.. right (sarcasm)
oh an the other laugh
core are independent..
after all if independent then when devs do something independently they why would they be subject to REKT campaigns. or fear peer reviewing and helping out independently of other implementations.
the only way they can end up helping is by pretending to attack by publicising the issues of other peer implementations. that way they wont get pigeon holed into other implementations be acting like they are attacking it. when realy they are saying something needs to be fixed at line x,y,z
even gmax is keping his head low by hiring samson mow to be the face of UASF so that gmax doesnt get the face smack talk about Uasf issues and thrown the BIP's moderation over to luke JR and trying to make it look lik achow is the cencorship master of the tech discussion of this forum.. although the puppet strings are visible
along with 'core are the best team'
if everything is perfect and core are the best team.. then there is no need for segwit, there would be no debate
because there are no problems and bitcoin is already in utopia.. right (sarcasm)
oh an the other laugh
core are independent..
after all if independent then when devs do something independently they why would they be subject to REKT campaigns. or fear peer reviewing and helping out independently of other implementations.
the only way they can end up helping is by pretending to attack by publicising the issues of other peer implementations. that way they wont get pigeon holed into other implementations be acting like they are attacking it. when realy they are saying something needs to be fixed at line x,y,z
even gmax is keping his head low by hiring samson mow to be the face of UASF so that gmax doesnt get the face smack talk about Uasf issues and thrown the BIP's moderation over to luke JR and trying to make it look lik achow is the cencorship master of the tech discussion of this forum.. although the puppet strings are visible
How much does Roger pays you for each FUD post you make? $1 $10? If you know so much about it why dont you share youre opinion on GitHub? You wont do that because youre troll ass will be destroyed over there.
I know you have been rejected Franky1, youre pessimism is not a way to excuse youre self.
Do Nothing crowd is going to be deciding factor of the scaling debate.
Core can point to things working perfectly.
i laugh at that statement
along with 'core are the best team'
if everything is perfect and core are the best team.. then there is no need for segwit, there would be no debate
because there are no problems and bitcoin is already in utopia.. right (sarcasm)
oh an the other laugh
core are independent..
after all if independent then when devs do something independently they why would they be subject to REKT campaigns. or fear peer reviewing and helping out independently of other implementations.
the only way they can end up helping is by pretending to attack by publicising the issues of other peer implementations. that way they wont get pigeon holed into other implementations be acting like they are attacking it. when realy they are saying something needs to be fixed at line x,y,z
even gmax is keping his head low by hiring samson mow to be the face of UASF so that gmax doesnt get the face smack talk about Uasf issues and thrown the BIP's moderation over to luke JR and trying to make it look lik achow is the cencorship master of the tech discussion of this forum.. although the puppet strings are visible
you keep saying you want segwit.
what part of segwit can you prove is a 100% fix. that you desire about segwit
what part of segwit can you prove is a 100% guarantee promise. that you desire about segwit
can you even explain HOW the parts of segwit that you desire actually get the promise/fix
so before just pasting off another daily reddit script stats page..
i want you to actually do the segwit research and show you understand segwit, and can convince me that segwit will 100% get the promise you desire to show why you are sooo devoted into wanting it.
im guessing its going to be a reply about 'who' coded it not what they coded.
now lets see your reply.
please
no insults.
no 'cant be arsed'
no 'why should i tell you'
no 'if you dont know why ask me' word twisting..
i have done the research so lets see if you really understand segwit beyond the 30 second utopian sales pitch.
It's a extremely tricky situation. I wish that we could at least get segwit, then LN. But even after we get LN, we would need eventual blocksize increases, otherwise optionally doing onchain transactions would be impossible, and LN functionality itself I assume would suffer eventually, without said blocksize increase.
Indeed. I think part of the problem is that despite all the noise, everyone with influence is still too fat and comfortable to be pushed to action. Exchanges are still coining it, miners certainly are, Core can point to things working perfectly.
The only people who may not be so content are the users and by the time they make themselves properly known they might be permanently shopping elsewhere.
Jump to: