No, the "community" will not make another choice. In case you can't draw a straight line, there is a stalemate on any changes to bitcoin protocol. Neither segwit, nor classic, or BU gets voted in. Bitcoin stays as it is, the satoshi consensus is that there is no consensus, which means bitcoin is not forking anywhere.
So the only choice you ("community" whatever you understand by that) can make is leave bitcoin. What would actually happen with bitcoin, though: in a very near future second layer solutions would be built on top of what exists in bitcoin now, and most small transactions will move there. After seeing that this is the actual way forward, not a self-inflicted blockchain implosion suggested by Ver, then and only then there will be consensus to make adequate changes that fix malleability and allow faster side-channels.
Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 2. (Read 29824 times)
FYI:
Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
Nope. Moore's law is an observation, not a law. It's foolish to rely on it, and this shows high lack of knowledge.Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
if core was 1% reasonable, we'd already have 2mb and there wouldnt be any need to talk about 'on chain scaling to infinity' but they are not reasonable, so here we are.
Segwit is comparable to ~2.1 MB (if adopted) based on current usage patterns. That's on-chain scaling. What's the issue? Notwithstanding Segwit's other issues, it represents an end-run around simply increasing the blocksize.
Core, in the sole interest of their own agenda, is doing everything in its power to resist,delay, and fight this.
If they resist more, then the community will make another choice.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
FYI:
Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
Nope. Moore's law is an observation, not a law. It's foolish to rely on it, and this shows high lack of knowledge.Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
if core was 1% reasonable, we'd already have 2mb and there wouldnt be any need to talk about 'on chain scaling to infinity' but they are not reasonable, so here we are.
Segwit is comparable to ~2.1 MB (if adopted) based on current usage patterns. That's on-chain scaling. What's the issue? Notwithstanding Segwit's other issues, it represents an end-run around simply increasing the blocksize.
Core, in the sole interest of their own agenda, is doing everything in its power to resist,delay, and fight this.
Its not. Its about to compare with SW max blocksize. So you can say 1.7 or 3.6 I dont care.
No, it will not. As far as computational resources go, SW 4 MB requires less than a 4 MB block size increase would. The increase with Segwit would also be gradual with adoption, which is what makes it better.SW 4mb is only 2.1mb capacity at best, which yes only reaches 2.1 with 100% adoption of sw keys. so yes its gradual adoption.
by adoption its not about simply running a segwit node its about using segwit keys.
yes people have to move funds to segwit keys to help move to that.
so dont expect instant 2.1mb boost.. infact dont expect 2.1mb boost because not everyone will use segwit keys.
(seriously i cant believe it took you a year to atleast understand/admit that its gradual, but glad to see its finally settling in your mind how sw actually works..even if your still not fully clear in the details)
here is some finer details to help you understand.
the other 1.9mb of buffer space(total 4mb) this can be used for other features that are appended to the tail end of a transaction. such as confidential payment codes.(and yes even your overlord has pre-thought about what to do with the excess buffer weight area for things like CPC)
as for a proper consensus growth.. that to would be gradual.. not because people have to switch keys or move funds to anything fancy/different. but because pools will take safe 'testing the water' 'baby steps' with their increase of the blocksize.(just like gradual growth of 2009-2015 even with a 1mb buffer set)
take a look at the policy.h (the miners preferences)
/** Default for -blockmaxsize, which controls the maximum size of block the mining code will create **/
static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE = 750000;
if say the node consensus was 2mb..
[consensus.h] static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
pools will test the water with
[policy.h] static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE = 1001000;
first and check the orphan rate. if all good they will try
[policy.h] static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE = 1002000;
it could take a few days to grow to 2mb or a few months. depending on orphan safety rate.
the only difference is that many would prefer the sizes to be alterable at runtime and set to limits by usersettings adjusting by the node users
after reaching a network consensus.. rather than needing devs to control it and spoon feed new downloads after years of social drama to keep them as kings.
again its gradual just like bitcoin did not jump to 1mb filled blocks over night. even in 2013 we were only at 0.5mb even when we had the 1mb buffer set.
p.s. im sorry that bitcoin cant be explained to you in only one sentance. but please try taking a few extra minutes each day to read beyond your couple sentance concentration span limit. otherwise it will take you another year to slowly grasp any new feature
FYI:
Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
Nope. Moore's law is an observation, not a law. It's foolish to rely on it, and this shows high lack of knowledge.Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
Foolish of you to lie and say it is over when the world's top chip company says it is still active.
if core was 1% reasonable, we'd already have 2mb and there wouldnt be any need to talk about 'on chain scaling to infinity' but they are not reasonable, so here we are.
Segwit is comparable to ~2.1 MB (if adopted) based on current usage patterns. That's on-chain scaling. What's the issue? The issue is the same as it has always been segwit will allow LN to steal transaction fees aways from the miners, so the miners refuse to activate it.
Core could have released a plain hard fork with nothing but a 2.1 MB block increase and the miners would have updated almost overnight,
but instead core is attempting the underhanded takeover of BTC from the miners, and you seemed surprised the miners won't just give away their future income.
It would be no different , if I told you to sign over your social security checks to me now.
Same Thing, and the miners are not going to give away their money , anymore than you would yours without a fight.
FYI:
Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
Nope. Moore's law is an observation, not a law. It's foolish to rely on it, and this shows high lack of knowledge.Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
if core was 1% reasonable, we'd already have 2mb and there wouldnt be any need to talk about 'on chain scaling to infinity' but they are not reasonable, so here we are.
Segwit is comparable to ~2.1 MB (if adopted) based on current usage patterns. That's on-chain scaling. What's the issue? legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.
The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage' , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.
Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him.
The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too.
if core was 1% reasonable, we'd already have 2mb and there wouldnt be any need to talk about 'on chain scaling to infinity' but they are not reasonable, so here we are.
Achieving 10nm using >18 months is not Moore's law
And 1 transistor is reaching the absolute limits of physics at 7nm. And there is no proven commercialised way to increase processor performance beyond that. Maybe you should try reading articles about Moore's law that aren't Intel info-merccials
And 1 transistor is reaching the absolute limits of physics at 7nm. And there is no proven commercialised way to increase processor performance beyond that. Maybe you should try reading articles about Moore's law that aren't Intel info-merccials
LOL, now you want to claim to be smarter than Intel.
If you are the Deity you claim to be, why not just activate segwit with a wave of your hand.
Otherwise, I will just consider you a False Prophet for segwit.
Achieving 10nm using >18 months is not Moore's law
And 1 transistor is reaching the absolute limits of physics at 7nm. And there is no proven commercialised way to increase processor performance beyond that. Maybe you should try reading articles about Moore's law that aren't Intel info-mmercials
And 1 transistor is reaching the absolute limits of physics at 7nm. And there is no proven commercialised way to increase processor performance beyond that. Maybe you should try reading articles about Moore's law that aren't Intel info-mmercials
Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious.
Indeed... After decades of educated people making the same hurried conclusions that the human race has at various intervals and industries hit its technological limits only to be proven premature not much later in the future, we'll continue to have people we can rely on to make the same (misguided) conclusions.
I always find that precious=)
what you 2 lithographic etching engineers are failing to appreciate is that while Moore's law could be continued with a different paradigm, that paradigm does not exist yet. Until it does, Moore's law as described stopped working last year, it took ~24 months to get 14nm transistors, and will take longer than that to reach 10nm.
Saying "awww, sweet" doesn't actually invent a commercial 10nm silicon manufacturing technique, does it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/01/05/ces-2017-moores-law-not-dead-says-intel-boss/
Quote
But Intel’s chief executive Brian Krzanich has put an end to such fears with news the company will release a 10 nanometre chip in 2017.
The tiny chip will be cheaper than its predecessor, Intel said, keeping Moore’s law alive.
"I've heard the death of Moore's law more times than anything else in my 34-year career and
I'm here today to really show you and tell you that Moore's law is alive and well and flourishing," Krzanich said.
How big do I have to make these fonts for your dumb ass to get it.
FYI:
Shows one thing , CB & Lauda will repeat the wrong information over & over again.
Its not. Its about to compare with SW max blocksize. So you can say 1.7 or 3.6 I dont care.
No, it will not. As far as computational resources go, SW 4 MB requires less than a 4 MB block size increase would. The increase with Segwit would also be gradual with adoption, which is what makes it better.I see. If this is the only viable point you can find in summing up miners costs and benefits we can aggree on any size here. Miners benefits for buying SW will not increase dramatically in this comparision.
Its not. Its about to compare with SW max blocksize. So you can say 1.7 or 3.6 I dont care.
No, it will not. As far as computational resources go, SW 4 MB requires less than a 4 MB block size increase would. The increase with Segwit would also be gradual with adoption, which is what makes it better. Stay on 1MB has no cost - inherent stability drives price higher - clear benefit.
Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
This is pure bullshit. 4 MB has a lot of cost, unless you want to blindly just increase limits hoping that nothing goes wrong. Somehow, somewhere people tend to forget: resource cost, decentralization and orphans. There is a reason for which Bitcoin has a low orphan rate, i.e. a special relay network. Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
Its not. Its about to compare with SW max blocksize. So you can say 1.7 or 3.6 I dont care.
Stay on 1MB has no cost - inherent stability drives price higher - clear benefit.
Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
This is pure bullshit. 4 MB has a lot of cost, unless you want to blindly just increase limits hoping that nothing goes wrong. Somehow, somewhere people tend to forget: resource cost, decentralization and orphans. There is a reason for which Bitcoin has a low orphan rate, i.e. a special relay network. Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
what you 2 lithographic etching engineers are failing to appreciate is that while Moore's law could be continued with a different paradigm, that paradigm does not exist yet. Until it does, Moore's law as described stopped working last year, it took ~24 months to get 14nm transistors, and will take longer than that to reach 10nm.
Moore's law is no 'law' in the traditional sense. The word "law" is causing the spread of pseudo-science by uninformed average Joe's. It is a unreliable prediction that is no longer true. Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious.
Indeed... After decades of educated people making the same hurried conclusions that the human race has at various intervals and industries hit its technological limits only to be proven premature not much later in the future, we'll continue to have people we can rely on to make the same (misguided) conclusions.
I always find that precious=)
what you 2 lithographic etching engineers are failing to appreciate is that while Moore's law could be continued with a different paradigm, that paradigm does not exist yet. Until it does, Moore's law as described stopped working last year, it took ~24 months to get 14nm transistors, and will take longer than that to reach 10nm.
Saying "awww, sweet" doesn't actually invent a commercial 10nm silicon manufacturing technique, does it?
Has anybody done or seen a strict costs and benfits analysis from a big miners view with respect to 'buy' SW or 'similar block size increase'?
I would put on this miner hat and write down on my project cost side thinks like
1. Prestudy:
Read and understand. How much lines of code are changed? - Time to read: high cost
Complexity: Time to understand also all dependencies - very high cost
Potential benefits compared to simple bs increase - poor
Side effects like loosing fees by easier enable 2nd layer tx solutions - negative
Benefits from other side features like malleability fix - dont care
Schnorr - dont care
2. Prototyping
Adjusting my private miner code. - medium cost
Smoke testing - medium cost
3.UAT candidate creation
High tuning the prototype and optimizing - high cost
UAT testing - high cost
4.signalling for productive go live ?
- Lots of cost there and even some negative benefit!
Stay on 1MB has no cost - inherent stability drives price higher - clear benefit.
Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
What would you do with you big miner hat on?
I would put on this miner hat and write down on my project cost side thinks like
1. Prestudy:
Read and understand. How much lines of code are changed? - Time to read: high cost
Complexity: Time to understand also all dependencies - very high cost
Potential benefits compared to simple bs increase - poor
Side effects like loosing fees by easier enable 2nd layer tx solutions - negative
Benefits from other side features like malleability fix - dont care
Schnorr - dont care
2. Prototyping
Adjusting my private miner code. - medium cost
Smoke testing - medium cost
3.UAT candidate creation
High tuning the prototype and optimizing - high cost
UAT testing - high cost
4.signalling for productive go live ?
- Lots of cost there and even some negative benefit!
Stay on 1MB has no cost - inherent stability drives price higher - clear benefit.
Go to 4MB is just benefit, nearly no cost.
What would you do with you big miner hat on?
Moore's Law is no longer tenable, as microchip manufacturing has (ironically) hit it's the technological limits.
aww..... that's just precious.
Indeed... After decades of educated people making the same hurried conclusions that the human race has at various intervals and industries hit its technological limits only to be proven premature not much later in the future, we'll continue to have people we can rely on to make the same (misguided) conclusions.
I always find that precious=)
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.
Obvious and delusional shill account. Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.
The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.
Keep watching
It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions.Keep watching
After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes?
I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.
No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.
The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage' , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.
Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him.
The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too.
*sigh*
I really don't get what's wrong with you core diehards.
Thats the chisma.
If you think bitcoin is only store of value, nothing needs to be changed at all. Price is up.
Fees are up, adoption for rich is up.
If you think bitcoin is more than that (I am) you need to scale.
Not sure if anybody can 'dictate' the direction, I think greed does it finally. Individuals are dammed to discuss (helps?) or analyse and watch.
After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes?
No. With Segwit the block size parameter changes into 'base' and 'weight'. With Segwit you get 1 MB base and 4 MB weight. If one wanted to increase on-chain capacity via this method post Segwit, these paramters would have to be changed. Traditionally it would only be one parameter (as is now).I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.
IMHO emergent consensus has a far greater risk than Segwit. I'd prefer Segwit or the old Classic approach (2 MB) instead of BU. 
You gotta be kidding me, right?
Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.
Obvious and delusional shill account. Core is lost the war already. Even BU is lost, we can't let core to win.
The growing bounty in the mempool and the greed of the miners will solve the stalling at some critical point like its done in a typical phase separation manner when ice (1MB freeze) melts into liquid.
Keep watching
It almost seems like *they don't* want to scale it. As I've mentioned several times before, the path forward should be pretty *simple*: Segwit now -> HF to increase the base size after -> LN and other second layer solutions.Keep watching
After segwit activation, will the hard fork revert the changes?
I honestly see no problem with segwit, nor BU. The real problem is that we need a change soon. We need one now.
No; unlimited was created because there shouldnt be a maximum blocksize that is part of the consensus rules.
The idea/argument that larger blocks will centralize hashing power in areas that have faster propagation
times is silly and does not hold water since A) such areas already have that 'advantage' , B) miners can
always choose to solve smaller blocks, at least for several decades, and C) the bitcoin relay network already
purports to mitigate propagation issues, claiming global latencies as low as 100ms, which compared to an
average block interval of 10 minutes (which is 0.016%, or about a hundredth of a percent) is insignificant.
Unlimited was created with only one purpose - to boost an ego of a single person who's silly idea was not accepted by core. That person is neither a dev nor understands anything about economics, that is why he keeps pushing this most outrageous idea of on-chain scaling to infinity - and now that he has spent significant amount of money on pushing this silly idea, it has become a matter of principle for him.
The fact that you monkeys jump around him does not change the fact that exactly zero people (of the ones that matter in bitcoin world) do support that fork. It will never ever be accepted, just deal with it and move on do something useful. What he might succeed in is blocking real thought-through proposals indefinitely; in that case bitcoin remains immutable and all innovation goes into additional layers. Works this way, too.
*sigh*
I really don't get what's wrong with you core diehards.
Jump to: