Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 9. (Read 29824 times)

::sigh:: You sure are persistent in your preening pedantic posturing. And you _still_ have not answered the question, posed thrice. I'll even modify the time for you:

Riddle me this: built off a parent of the same block height, a miner is presented -- at roughly the same time:
1) an aberrant block that takes an inordinate amount of time (e.g.,  10 minutes) to verify but is otherwise valid;
2) a 'normal' valid block that does not take an inordinate amount of time to verify; and
3) an invalid block.
Which of these three do you suppose that miner will choose to build the next round atop in order to maximize profit?

This time it's different. This time Core got "rekt". They can keep putting out sh*t releases all they want, it won't change reality.

Keep on putting lipstick on that pig, and put her right in the front of your shop window. Maybe try a bow on her head?

http://moneyandstate.com/the-true-cost-of-bitcoin-transactions/

Erik Voorhees says that TIME and SANITY are the biggest costs to Bitcoin users. Good point, I know I'm frustrated! "Take me away Monero-baby..."

I heard from Luke's BIP. A block size of 300 kB (if I remember right) is far too low for now - I think that would already be a decision in favour of a digital gold without "regular on-chain payment functionality" which I highly doubt it will work.

But the rest of the plan goes into the right direction. Exactly such a BIP (Segwit and then 17% increase every year) would be my preferred way to solve the problem. I would even propose such a BIP myself but would need the support of Bitcoin experts as I'm not a programmer and so nobody would take me seriously

Economic majority != poor people.

You are a delusional troll. You don't understand the fact that I don't really care whether Bitcoin upgrades to it or not. These TX fees don't have any effect on me, and they wouldn't even in the case of them growing 10-100 fold.

If the right people were being listened to, that's the direction in which we would go.

Too sad, that science dictates to have SW first and than Schnorr... What a pity!

Electrum devs cannot change the fact Bitcoin uses Lamport sigs.  As currently implemented, Lamport sig validation scales quadratically with tx size.

Nobody can fix that until we have segwit and may then change to Schnorr sigs.

Source:

Poor people outnumber rich people , they can move to a coin with cheaper TX fees, and that will affect the market.


Hmm, the fact that segwit will never be activated , just can't get past that furball you call a brain.

 

FYI:
BTC unlimited hit 31.3% , segwit never got over 30%,
Tide has shifted. 

If you're complaining about TX fees of 15-30 cents, you don't have money to move the market.

This BU stuff has zero relevance to the price.

Yes, Segwit would make that upgrade quite easier. I think that is one of the current plans post-Segwit anyways.

So you are saying their Developer is not competent enough to find a solution.
I think if the Developer of electrum was actually worried about it , he would have mentioned it when asked point blank on the blocksize issue.
(His biggest issue is he just wants the debate over so he knows which direction the network is going.)

Segwit is not going to happen , the miners are not giving up their livings just so Core can take over BTC with an iron fist.
So unless Core is forcing a fork, they better start looking for other solutions , like BU.
And if they do force a fork , my money is on the Chinese miners crushing them.

 

FYI:
Electrum is 5% to 10% of the BTC users, it is an all volunteer group, they receive no funding.
So neither BTC core or the Miners are really worried about them or their users.

FYI2:
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/wallets/#hot-wallets

Let ICi believe in random walks and sience is answer to all issues. He does not even get how to communicate in civilized manner.
Riddle for you: What distribution do you need for your stock market random walk or ( same task) what one is underlying to the real ( not academic ) economics like bitcoin experiment (e.g. acceptance probability)?

Stock prices follow random walks.  Stock prices are not experiments.  They do not support or disprove a hypothesis.

You don't seem to have a clear understanding of how science works.

I can't imagine living in such a dark, demon-haunted world.

I'm truly sorry you never received a proper education.

Here, read this.

https://explorable.com/falsifiability

Let there be light!  



kiklo,

The O(n^2) sigop attack cannot be mitigated with Electrum X or by simply buying a faster Xeon server.

As Gavin said, we need to move to Schnorr sigs to get (sub)linear sig validation time scaling.

And AFAIK moving to Schnorr sigs at minimum requires implementing Core's segwit soft fork.

Informed Bitcoiners like Adam Back and the rest of Core plan to do segwit first, because it pays off technical debt and thus strengthens the foundation necessary to support increased block sizes later.

@iCEBREAKER,

1. Are you suggesting an ENTIRE Coin network block updating to unlimited because YOU claim 1 developer can't update their code to work with BTC unlimited.
Keyword : You Claim,

Because here is what the Electrum Developer said
Plus he has no problem updating electrum for Segwit, which you posers claim can reach ~4 Megabyte block size.
Like the rest of the world update or get left behind.  I have no doubts electrum would be updated to work with BU , in short order.


But guess what in the real world when a Vendor is unable to make a product work, we move to a product that does work.  
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/10/16/electrum-x-newer-much-faster-variant-electrum-server/


 

In the market there is always a cause and an effect, it will definitely be interesting to see how this all pans out. Something has to give but I'm not entirely sure what it is yet.

Ok , thx that you stayed on and just w/o any insult.

Try this: If e.g. A stock price tested against a barrier two times, will it hold 3rd for sure?

There are many complaints about high fees and long queue waiting times. The market does give a fuck and miners are going to answer its demands.

Depends on stubbornness of Core devs and if they are willing to redefine what Bitcoin is, namely, the miners hashing sha256 establish the longest chain consensus part of definition.
If Core devs have an agenda to win at any cost, they will create a different hashing algo client, I think LukeJr already did it with Keccak, and Bitcoin will fork into sha256 and Keccak two chains.
If Core devs give up, users will happily continue to use the chain that old good sha256 miners are hashing.
Do you have a different view?

To me the problem with LN is not LN itself, but that there should be no ambiguity on the fact that it's not the same than bitcoin network. It's more this confusion that i find disturbing, like saying writing data in a cache is "just the same" than writing the data disk but just much faster .. Well no it's not the same thing done faster, it's faster precisely because it doesn't do the thing that take the more time and give all the security to the data.

With LN it's a bit the same confusion saying it's just the same than bitcoin network but faster, or more scalable, yes it's faster, and it can scale processing of off chain transaction, but it's still not the same than the real bitcoin network, and it's faster precisely because it bypass the actual processing of the mining node and the global validation through distributed proof of work. And it doesn't solve anything of the actual bitcoin scaling issue. Just bypass it in condition that are still safe in most case, but the case where it matter should be more clear.

It's not even 'just like a system of cache', because if it was so, it would be totally transparent to all the application using the network, the bitcoin network and LN network should be all the time completely synchronized with each other, even if that involve synchronizing with off chain operation. If there is not 100% certainty that the state in the LN network is 100% synchronized all the time with the onchain data, and that operation in the LN network based on out of date data is invalidated, it's not acting like a simple system of cache. Because it can matter in certain case if the operation is happening inside of the LN network or onchain. The two not exactly equivalent. And there could be a difference between asking the balance of an address on the main network and inside of LN network.

But again i think there is room for LN like things, and i don't think 100% of all use of bitcoin need to happen onchain on a fully synchronized local application, and there is room for off chain things, but need to be no ambiguity that the two are completely different things, LN is not solving the true bitcoin scaling problem, and operations happening inside of LN do not provide the same level of security than true on chain operations, even if they are faster and scale better.

And i'm not sure the developers and team are making such a good job at making this clear, and the case where it can matter if the transaction is happening in LN or onchain. And more trying to make it look like it's the same thing but made faster, but it's faster precisely because it's not doing the same thing and bypass the part that actually take the more time.

You are confusing "measurements" with the resolutions of the XT and Classic experiments.

Instruments take measurements, experiments test hypotheses.

What an appallingly ignorant display of your lack of basic familiarity with the philosophy of science.

I didn't say anything about "the end of every trend."  My point is obviously specific to the resolution of the Unlimite_ measurement experiment.

Please try to stay focused on the subject at hand and not wander off into lazy universal generalities about what we should or should not "always" do.

I would love to see everyone come together and focus on a reasonable compromise. So much divisiveness in the world, sad to see that it is reflected in the digital world as well.