Pages:
Author

Topic: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) - page 6. (Read 8430 times)

sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
Suppose I think Core and BU won't compromise (thickheads).  I want to spread my investment out across both.  Too early?

Just make sure that you obtain BTC before any potential bilateral split (should it occur), and then you have an identical stake in both. That BTC has to be on your own private key to be safe (not on exchange or web wallet).
hero member
Activity: 709
Merit: 503
Suppose I think Core and BU won't compromise (thickheads).  I want to spread my investment out across both.  Too early?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.

But even with the dash masternodes being able to quickly agree on an 'instant payment', don't these still need to be written to the blockchain? And can they quickly agree on millions of transactions being thrown at it?
They are written to the next block, not much of an issue when it is standard purchases and with 2.5 minute block time

So the masternodes, once agreed, must broadcast this as a high priority transaction some how to all other nodes (which would override any conflicting tx in its mempool), so that if someone mines a block it will be included. If the dash blockchain capacity fails to meet demand there could be issues. How does it fool proof it to prevent a double spend, e.g. node which has not yet received the masternode winner already writes a double spend into a block it mines. Why could such a system not be included into all bitcoin nodes (without requiring someone to lock up 1000BTC and expect mircropayment)?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.

But even with the dash masternodes being able to quickly agree on an 'instant payment', don't these still need to be written to the blockchain? And can they quickly agree on millions of transactions being thrown at it?
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2548
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
..., it'll be used to hedge and invest, the fees are extremely competitive for that and capacity is fine.

Kind of like the derivatives ticking time bomb that will need to be propped up with tax payers cash.

People wanting to buy a coffee will just need to use something like dash.

Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested.

DASH has some super nodes, that means scale good, security bad.  ETH might need to do the same (PoS) to achieve scalability with smart contracts on top... Bad security!
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
..., it'll be used to hedge and invest, the fees are extremely competitive for that and capacity is fine.

Kind of like the derivatives ticking time bomb that will need to be propped up with tax payers cash.

People wanting to buy a coffee will just need to use something like dash.

Can Dash handle 'visa tomorrow'? Look at the transaction usage and blockchain size and tell me how well you think that system has been stress tested.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
Bitcoin unlimited can never anywhere because the most important thing is the code, and the team is obviously light years away from the Core team, so you are wasting your time thinking anyone but the idiots that only think about cheap fees are going to be running this abomination called BU.

Anyone can create their own node software as long as it complies with the consensus network protocol. That statement is similar to calling linux developers idiots because most people run Windows.
legendary
Activity: 868
Merit: 1006
Bitcoin unlimited can never anywhere because the most important thing is the code, and the team is obviously light years away from the Core team, so you are wasting your time thinking anyone but the idiots that only think about cheap fees are going to be running this abomination called BU.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
Underlying capacity not big enough for an institutionalised global reserve currency. They'll soon work that out and buy gold and security vans instead.

If 2-3 transactions are too low for "currency on the internet", I don't know if this is not sufficient for settlements between institutional players.  

A quick internet search and calculations regarding the Swift network:

1995: Average around 0.5 tps.
2015: Average around 3 tps.

Plus to be able to be used for institutional settlement, there would need to be a registry of address ownership.

They would be better off creating their own blockchain instead.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Underlying capacity not big enough for an institutionalised global reserve currency. They'll soon work that out and buy gold and security vans instead.

If 2-3 transactions are too low for "currency on the internet", I don't know if this is not sufficient for settlements between institutional players. 
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
Looks like this could very well be the end game for bitcoin.

The end game for bitcoin as a "currency on the internet", but its beginning as an institutionalized reserve currency.

Underlying capacity not big enough for an institutionalised global reserve currency. They'll soon work that out and buy gold and security vans instead.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Looks like this could very well be the end game for bitcoin.

The end game for bitcoin as a "currency on the internet", but its beginning as an institutionalized reserve currency.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
Transaction capacity and confirmation time effects are part of the liquidity value of bitcoin.

People don't really care.  Most of the market cap comes from exchange IOU.  Not from transactions on the block chain.  And big players will always find an agreement with miners to get their essential transactions through.

You don't really see the power that miners get when normal transactions become impossible, do you.  Exchanges will of course "buy" (with fiat ?) room with big mining pools.  Big financial players will buy room on the chain.  To make it impossible for mere mortals to transact without them.  Most of bitcoin will become bitcoin IOU.  This is also what states like: no more anarchic bitcoining, but bitcoining through institutional players.  And miners are king, because they sell their precious space to the highest bidder in contracts ; not with fees. 

Looks like this could very well be the end game for bitcoin.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 501
its only hard to get consensus if people do not learn consensus (such as those not understanding BU or segwit)

those WITH NODES should spend more time learning consensus. rather than reading sci-fi scripted doomsday rhetoric

politics of doomsday "gigabytes by midnight" "call anything not blockstream a alt" are the time wasting crew causing delay in REAL LEARNING

yes its hard to wake the sheep up and get them motivated to learn how bitcoin actually works to then make the informed decisions.
but we are not talking about millions of users. but just 6000ish people who run nodes(a few people run many nodes) need to learn how bitcoin
really works to make them decisions.(pools are amongst them 6000)

its not impossible. but just harder due to politics. not 'immutable dynamics'

Franky1; the legendary troll spewing out his daily FUD again.

Would you like to make a reasoned argument against this FUD so that I can expand my knowledge, reassess my own misunderstandings, and then I can factor it in to my decision making process.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Transaction capacity and confirmation time effects are part of the liquidity value of bitcoin.

People don't really care.  Most of the market cap comes from exchange IOU.  Not from transactions on the block chain.  And big players will always find an agreement with miners to get their essential transactions through.

You don't really see the power that miners get when normal transactions become impossible, do you.  Exchanges will of course "buy" (with fiat ?) room with big mining pools.  Big financial players will buy room on the chain.  To make it impossible for mere mortals to transact without them.  Most of bitcoin will become bitcoin IOU.  This is also what states like: no more anarchic bitcoining, but bitcoining through institutional players.  And miners are king, because they sell their precious space to the highest bidder in contracts ; not with fees. 

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
but just harder due to politics. not 'immutable dynamics'

The politics IS part of the immutable dynamics.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 629
Yes, any one of these parameters could be changed with consensus.

My point is exactly that they can't, as long as we have a distributed, trustless system.  It can only happen, if there is sufficient centralization.  

Would you accept that suddenly, the block reward jumps to 500 coins because this suits miners ?  Do you really think this is possible by consensus ?

Quote
Most miners are not short sighted evil entities. They would rather process more transactions with lower fees as this increases the utility value of what they are mining.

Of course they are "evil entities" like all of us.  All entities in a trustless system are to be considered as evil entities.  Otherwise, if they are to be trusted, the system is not trustless.

The point is, however, that there are *different ways* to increase the number of transactions, and that there will not be an agreement on which way, because that will influence the gains and the losses of some.  One will not come to an agreement, even if an agreement is beneficial.   There is no way to come to a consensus, as there will always be a sizeable fraction that doesn't want it that way but the other way.

You see it with segwit vs BU.  

newbie
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
its only hard to get consensus if people do not learn consensus (such as those not understanding BU or segwit)

those WITH NODES should spend more time learning consensus. rather than reading sci-fi scripted doomsday rhetoric

politics of doomsday "gigabytes by midnight" "call anything not blockstream a alt" are the time wasting crew causing delay in REAL LEARNING

yes its hard to wake the sheep up and get them motivated to learn how bitcoin actually works to then make the informed decisions.
but we are not talking about millions of users. but just 6000ish people who run nodes(a few people run many nodes) need to learn how bitcoin
really works to make them decisions.(pools are amongst them 6000)

its not impossible. but just harder due to politics. not 'immutable dynamics'

Franky1; the legendary troll spewing out his daily FUD again.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
its only hard to get consensus if people do not learn consensus (such as those not understanding BU or segwit)

those WITH NODES should spend more time learning consensus. rather than reading sci-fi scripted doomsday rhetoric

politics of doomsday "gigabytes by midnight" "call anything not blockstream a alt" are the time wasting crew causing delay in REAL LEARNING

yes its hard to wake the sheep up and get them motivated to learn how bitcoin actually works to then make the informed decisions.
but we are not talking about millions of users. but just 6000ish people who run nodes(a few people run many nodes) need to learn how bitcoin
really works to make them decisions.(pools are amongst them 6000)

its not impossible. but just harder due to politics. not 'immutable dynamics'
copper member
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1465
Clueless!
I disagree with IMPOSSIBLE. I think the situation makes it difficult, and so potentially highly unlikely that protocol change can be implemented. That is not the same as impossible.

Well, in the same way that it is not impossible that one decides to postpone the next halving, or to have blocks every 2 minutes.
BTW, that would be a much smarter solution: decreasing the block times.  10 minutes is awfully long.  Many newer coins have times of 1 or 2 minutes.  (note that this increases the amount of bitcoin in the end too if the block rewards remain...)

Yes, any one of these parameters could be changed with consensus. Block times are less important than ensuring that transactions eventually get confirmed. The zero confirmation economic risk has shifted from the disadvantaged malicious double spend propagation attempt, to one of not getting confirmed at all due to full block capacity and forgetful mempools, or selective transaction node relay.

It becomes *more and more* difficult as fees rise and this parameter plays a bigger and bigger role in miner revenue.  It was 10 times easier to solve that issue one year ago than now.  Because the financial implications become more and more important every day.

Most miners are not short sighted evil entities. They would rather process more transactions with lower fees as this increases the utility value of what they are mining.

Transaction capacity and confirmation time effects are part of the liquidity value of bitcoin.


the problem is bitcoin core and BU and other folks with block chain solutions are digging their heels in less about the actual block size fix..but it is about POWER who controls
bitcoin..most if not all the developers of ANY camp are bitcoin whales....they have cashed out much/or could if things get ugly...so it is all about ego and power now or
they would imho have comprised like they said on the seg witness first then the hard fork later...they caved and punted (bitcoin core)

so money/ego/power that always works out well right?

Pages:
Jump to: