2mb would be practically harmless. There is no real immediate downside from such a small increase.. and it does not require wallet code to be rewritten on every platform. It is certainly better than letting blocks get consistently full @1mb, dissuading new bitcoin companies from opening up their doors because BTC can't scale, and pricing hundreds of users off the network, or causing their transactions to take 2-3 days in some cases, not to mention contributing to the rise of altcoins.
At this point, we don't know when segwit will be ready. I'm all for having both, but there is no reason to keep stalling for changes that could be made immediately. People are dropping off the network left and right, and I'm afraid that the serious stall tactics combined with a lack of any leadership whatsoever in the BTC space is going to continue to cause increasingly compounding problems.
Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 30. (Read 157147 times)
Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.
The idea behind Classic is useless at the moment. Why would someone opt for a solution that does something in a certain way, when there's a solution (segwit) that does it in a much better way and comes with additional benefits? It does seem like we can't really take a break from the drama. Seems like the community constantly jumps from one thing to another.Hate to dig up this old reply, but man I can't believe you actually consider segwit (on it's own) to be a solution to anything.
It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.
Shill harder
Certainly, I am no technical expert, but you really sound like a layman coming at this problem from a perspective that has been marketed to you... and you are trying to suggest that there is some simple solution blah blah blah.. and that really is not the case.. From my understanding, increasing blocksize limits is not simple because it has a variety of negative effects, not necessary and does not contain merely "upside" as you seem to imply.
In some sense, shouldn't we give some deference to some of the technical people on this, and there is no dispute coming from them regarding the brilliance of seg wit...? They all agree that seg wit is a great solution to a variety of bitcoin issues, even Gavin and Garzik and maybe even Hearnia (though I am speculating about whether he was agreeable about anything in his final bought out days of fame)
Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.
The idea behind Classic is useless at the moment. Why would someone opt for a solution that does something in a certain way, when there's a solution (segwit) that does it in a much better way and comes with additional benefits? It does seem like we can't really take a break from the drama. Seems like the community constantly jumps from one thing to another.Hate to dig up this old reply, but man I can't believe you actually consider segwit (on it's own) to be a solution to anything.
It's just a re-arrangement of information in the blocks, an accounting trick that is overly-complicated just to get a slight boost in transaction capacity. 2mb would be far more effective, simple and efficient. And that's what bitcoin needs right now - simple efficiency, not overly complicated solutions that require every single wallet's code to be completely rewritten just for one change to work.
Quote
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k7gq1/whats_up_with_uhellobitcoinworld/
I wanted to contact him about the disappearance of the mining fund from his website, but now I wonder what's up, as it seems like scam currently.
I wanted to contact him about the disappearance of the mining fund from his website, but now I wonder what's up, as it seems like scam currently.
Half of all Klassik nodes disappear, then /u/hellobitcoinworld takes the money donated for mining Klassik blocks and runs...
The person most shocked by this is cypherdefendant - the idea that someone would run a scam in the bitcoin world, shocking.
Quote
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k7gq1/whats_up_with_uhellobitcoinworld/
I wanted to contact him about the disappearance of the mining fund from his website, but now I wonder what's up, as it seems like scam currently.
I wanted to contact him about the disappearance of the mining fund from his website, but now I wonder what's up, as it seems like scam currently.
Half of all Klassik nodes disappear, then /u/hellobitcoinworld takes the money donated for mining Klassik blocks and runs...
Whether we like it or not, Bitcoin simply cannot hardfork while a large part of the community does not consent to it.
You seem to recognize exactly that a non-consensus hardfork is not necessary and is potentially damaging, so I remain a bit unclear regarding what fruitfulness comes from your going around polling people in the bitcoin community regarding what kind of scenarios they believe in which a hardfork would be a good thing?
If the community could come to agreement on it, it would help Bitcoin compete in the near term at least.
Likely, I do not understand technicalities sufficiently; however, I thought that almost all significant changes could be achieve through soft forks, so I remain uncertain why a hardfork would be even needed, unless there was some kind of technical emergency.. such as some kind of bug that allowed a maligned player to steal coins.
In other words, to attempt to rush consensus seems to be an unnecessary (and potentially dangerous and damaging) alteration of bitcoin's governance, rather than attempts at addressing any kind of necessary technical resolution.
I do agree any rush is unnecessary, and that a safe hardfork is probably impractical at this time (albeit I am trying to find a way to prove myself wrong here, so I can meet the terms I agreed to, but so far no success in doing so).
Well, you were there for the actual discussion of the agreement, but it seems very impractical, and even a bad reading of the actual literal agreement to believe that a pursuit of a hardfork would be necessary prior to verifying how seg wit plays out first.. .
I mean, really, seg wit is not even actually live on the network, yet, so isn't it feasible that seg wit could really cause a lot of the points for an actual hard fork to be mute... (at least regarding to a raising of the blocksize limit for some time to come) and yeah of course, a large number of bitcoin holders would agree that if old coins somehow become more vulnerable due to changes in security or abilities to break cryptography, then those matters are going to be weighed to potentially justify a hardfork rather than a softfork... but also, breaking cryptography is much at the theoretical level, instead of actual demonstrations of such breaks of cryptography occurring, no?
Of course, nobody else in the community outside of that HK meeting has agreed to do anything, and is free to reject any proposal we come up with.
July. Thanks.
I'd even say more stronger: Banks have strongest security & firewalls
My justification for keeping most of my bitcoins in MtGox...Good point - Need to say better: Stronger than I have...
I'd even say more stronger: Banks have strongest security & firewalls
My justification for keeping most of my bitcoins in MtGox... 
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
I think there is a place for "Bitcoin banks" to exist.
Most people will not like the idea of being responsible of their own money... like the idea of having all of your networth at home in some cold storage, might seem to scary for them, and they couldn't take it if they did a mistake and lost it all. So I for those that are scared of that, and would rather trust a bank carrying their private keys, im sure there will be services like that. Personally I think it kills the point of Bitcoin, but who cares, as long as we have the option to manage our own money.
I'd even say more stronger: Banks have strongest security & firewalls -> Clients will pay fees for this service,
and banks NEED (!!) to run miners as well, so they still can print money (thanks to hdbuck
) , but MORE they will help to ensure / win back the decentralization !! (bye bye China) and might ensure having strong code dev.#braindamage
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
I think there is a place for "Bitcoin banks" to exist.
Most people will not like the idea of being responsible of their own money... like the idea of having all of your networth at home in some cold storage, might seem to scary for them, and they couldn't take it if they did a mistake and lost it all. So I for those that are scared of that, and would rather trust a bank carrying their private keys, im sure there will be services like that. Personally I think it kills the point of Bitcoin, but who cares, as long as we have the option to manage our own money.
I'd even say more stronger: Banks have strongest security & firewalls -> Clients will pay fees for this service,
and banks NEED (!!) to run miners as well, so they still can print money (thanks to hdbuck
) , but MORE they will help to ensure / win back the decentralization !! (bye bye China) and might ensure having strong code dev.
Bitcoin banks - Mt. Gox, Cryptsy, Intersango
A great idea whose time has come
A great idea whose time has come
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
I think there is a place for "Bitcoin banks" to exist.
Most people will not like the idea of being responsible of their own money... like the idea of having all of your networth at home in some cold storage, might seem to scary for them, and they couldn't take it if they did a mistake and lost it all. So I for those that are scared of that, and would rather trust a bank carrying their private keys, im sure there will be services like that. Personally I think it kills the point of Bitcoin, but who cares, as long as we have the option to manage our own money.
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
Never say never.
And if there is a way to earn (or safe) money, they will (maybe when it's the last or only one left).
They dont need to earn/save money, They fucking print it all day long.
Yep, as miners do.
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
Never say never.
And if there is a way to earn (or safe) money, they will (maybe when it's the last or only one left).
They dont need to earn/save money, They fucking print it all day long.
hdbuckonomics, read it and weep
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
Never say never.
And if there is a way to earn (or safe) money, they will (maybe when it's the last or only one left).
They dont need to earn/save money, They fucking print it all day long.
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
Never say never.
And if there is a way to earn (or safe) money, they will (maybe when it's the last or only one left).
PWC has no investment in Blockstream or anything to do with investment in Blockstream. (Not that it would matter if they did), AFAIK no bank has any investment in Blockstream-- though they might be wise to, to the extent that the technology we work on might displace some of their businesses they'd be wise to want to figure out how to adapt to it.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
There is all the reasons In the world Banks WILL NEVER adapt to bitcoin as it is meant to freaking by-pass them and their sham of a financial system.
Them banksters rely on debt money. Not sound money.
So they will fight it, infiltrate it, try at corrupt it, etc.
Pretty much what we have witnessed so far with stupid "Blockchain tech" hype, social ingeneering bullshitery, kyc/aml regulation sheningans, governance schemes and other fork attacks.
But may they try harder. Make bitcoin even more resilient to their obsolete tactics.
Meh so Classic got #R3kt - as expected and because the reality is that nobody besides the social media derps wants to commit fork - and so now core should take over and implement their beloved 2MB fork? lol
Hardfork will not happen. Give it a 10 years grace period or even a 51% threshold. Forkers will get #R3kt anyway.
But I kinda regret we did not took the classic opportunity to get rid of goldman-coinbase-sachs and other delusional corporations with their reddit minions. If only they'd have forked their way out of the legacy network.
Hardfork will not happen. Give it a 10 years grace period or even a 51% threshold. Forkers will get #R3kt anyway.
But I kinda regret we did not took the classic opportunity to get rid of goldman-coinbase-sachs and other delusional corporations with their reddit minions. If only they'd have forked their way out of the legacy network.
Something tells me that BTC2/USD and R3CT/USD would've always tracked BTC/USD by a huge margin, with envy...
But really, most groups that might be displaced by Bitcoin simply can't see it coming-- if they weren't blind to the reasons it would displace them they wouldn't likely be displaced. There is no reason that any ordinary bank today couldn't quite profitably adapt to an all Bitcoin world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlrgjgOHrw
Pic related
Quote
The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 60 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 255 bytes, this results in a fee of 15,300 satoshis (0.06$).
https://bitcoinfees.21.coFor the median transaction size of 255 bytes, this results in a fee of 15,300 satoshis (0.06$).
Jump to: