Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 58. (Read 157137 times)
Breaking: a major Classic shill realizes the ethreum guys aren't on their team
Lightning network is just the first example of can be done building on P2SH with payment channels.
The lightning network is a great achievement. It is quite unfortunate that people are bashing it. LN has a theoretically infinite capacity. It is absurdly more efficient than transacting on the main-chain in addition to being both decentralized (it should be) and secure as well. It is currently the only known way for Bitcoin to scale towards mainstream adoption.The problem right now is the paucity of imagination and talent, made worse by distractions like appeals to get-rich-quick solutions, short-termism, etc.
Indeed. These controversial forks are just disruptions. I'm certain that a lot of time has been wasted (time which could have been used for developing). Sometimes I get this feeling that these discussions are going in loops. It can get quite tiring at times.
Lightning network is just the first example of what can be done building on P2SH with payment channels.
There are sure to be more innovations using Bitcoin's scripting/contracting emgine that allow for trustless off-chain transacting in other layered solutions, tailored for specific use cases.
The problem right now is the paucity of imagination and talent, made worse by distractions like appeals to get-rich-quick solutions, short-termism, etc.
There are sure to be more innovations using Bitcoin's scripting/contracting emgine that allow for trustless off-chain transacting in other layered solutions, tailored for specific use cases.
The problem right now is the paucity of imagination and talent, made worse by distractions like appeals to get-rich-quick solutions, short-termism, etc.
gavin usg-bip-turds would have killed bitcoin.
Well, it does seem like people have forgotten that 20 MB block size limit was "urgent" in 2015 according to him. Here we are in 2016, still at 1 MB and everything is fine.The real value is on Bitcoin as a new and better gold, so I see whales coming in, and people with some sort of portfolio.
The real value comes from the decentralization and censorship resistance.Bitcoin will go to trillion dollar marketcap by then, but by then we should have LN working.
The Lightning Network is the only proposal so far that would enable Bitcoin to catch up with Visa. If Bitcoin relied on the block size limit, then it would always stay far behind (currently only 3 TPS, and Visa ~2000 TPS on average). Unfortunately, there are users that are bashing the people who are working on making LN a reality.
I don't see people coming en masse like crazy to Bitcoin to considering a collapse of the system due tons of people suddenly being interesting in using it or holding some. Honestly most people don't care about what they use to pay stuff, as long as they get what they want.
The real value is on Bitcoin as a new and better gold, so I see whales coming in, and people with some sort of portfolio. The average joe will not care or need it, at least while cash still exists. Once govs remove cash, then we better be ready to be able to deal with VISA level transactions because that will be the moment when normal people realize they can't no longer do anything unless it's strictly controlled (so no more doing small jobs here and there for some cash). Bitcoin will go to trillion dollar marketcap by then, but by then we should have LN working.
The real value is on Bitcoin as a new and better gold, so I see whales coming in, and people with some sort of portfolio. The average joe will not care or need it, at least while cash still exists. Once govs remove cash, then we better be ready to be able to deal with VISA level transactions because that will be the moment when normal people realize they can't no longer do anything unless it's strictly controlled (so no more doing small jobs here and there for some cash). Bitcoin will go to trillion dollar marketcap by then, but by then we should have LN working.
It is not even a discussion. I think that slowly big blockers will come down to earth and realize their mistake on their scaling roadmap. If they realize this and still push for a big block agenda without caring about the side effect (node centralization) means they don't want the best for Bitcoin and they are here just hoping to short and get some dollars. What they don't get is a decentralized censorship resistant system is way more valuable in the long term than a datacenter-run Bitcoin.
Indeed. I've said this before: The only reason for which one would want to rush a capacity increase is greed. These people are hoping that a lot of new users are going to come on-board and that this will cause the price to go upwards. Anyone who thinks that Blockstream, or any Core developer with a stake in Bitcoin would want to risk harming the system is acting foolish at best. It is in their best interest to make Bitcoin a huge success. However, they aren't nearly as greedy as the 'forkers' (if, at all). Additionally, I heavily disagree with Gavin's BIP. Not only because of the bad design (it goes against everything that we've learned over the years), but also because of the added (new) limitations to the system.gavin usg-bip-turds would have killed bitcoin.
its not bitcoin that will adapt to people but people that will adapt to bitcoin.
you abide or fork off.
It is not even a discussion. I think that slowly big blockers will come down to earth and realize their mistake on their scaling roadmap. If they realize this and still push for a big block agenda without caring about the side effect (node centralization) means they don't want the best for Bitcoin and they are here just hoping to short and get some dollars. What they don't get is a decentralized censorship resistant system is way more valuable in the long term than a datacenter-run Bitcoin.
Indeed. I've said this before: The only reason for which one would want to rush a capacity increase is greed. These people are hoping that a lot of new users are going to come on-board and that this will cause the price to go upwards. Anyone who thinks that Blockstream, or any Core developer with a stake in Bitcoin would want to risk harming the system is acting foolish at best. It is in their best interest to make Bitcoin a huge success. However, they aren't nearly as greedy as the 'forkers' (if, at all). Additionally, I heavily disagree with Gavin's BIP. Not only because of the bad design (it goes against everything that we've learned over the years), but also because of the added (new) limitations to the system. internet is decentralized
It is on the p2p level but not in the ISP level.
That internet killswitch can easily be implemented if big corporations buy up all smaller ISP's.
nah, it cannot.
enough with the *if* discourse already.
...
It is on the p2p level but not in the ISP level.
That internet killswitch can easily be implemented if big corporations buy up all smaller ISP's.
It is on the p2p level but not in the ISP level.
That internet killswitch can easily be implemented if big corporations buy up all smaller ISP's.
>can
>if
Too late, brah..
If you only knew how bad things really are...
Saurian Internet Lizards. Stop them before it's too late!
internet is decentralized
It is on the p2p level but not in the ISP level.
That internet killswitch can easily be implemented if big corporations buy up all smaller ISP's.
Same applies to internet too, ISP are centralized and regulated, and they can cut your wire anytime.
This is why decentralization needs to be as strong as possible with Bitcoin. Surely, it will be much harder to shut down nodes at hundreds of different ISPs than shutting down 2 datacenters?We should find a decentralized internet system as well if we are in the flow towards decentralized systems.
I don't think that there is one(?).It is not even a discussion. I think that slowly big blockers will come down to earth and realize their mistake on their scaling roadmap. If they realize this and still push for a big block agenda without caring about the side effect (node centralization) means they don't want the best for Bitcoin and they are here just hoping to short and get some dollars. What they don't get is a decentralized censorship resistant system is way more valuable in the long term than a datacenter-run Bitcoin.
Same applies to internet too, ISP are centralized and regulated, and they can cut your wire anytime.
This is why decentralization needs to be as strong as possible with Bitcoin. Surely, it will be much harder to shut down nodes at hundreds of different ISPs than shutting down 2 datacenters?I`m worried ISP's will get centralized soon just like banks did in 2008. There are many hundred ISP out there in the world now, but i fear that giants like google and amazon could buy up half of them, and then it will be worrysome.
There is already technology out there that would let decentralized internet flourish, it's just that the spark wasnt ignited there yet.
Maybe we need a satoshi #2 for internet decentralization.
internet is decentralized
Same applies to internet too, ISP are centralized and regulated, and they can cut your wire anytime.
This is why decentralization needs to be as strong as possible with Bitcoin. Surely, it will be much harder to shut down nodes at hundreds of different ISPs than shutting down 2 datacenters?I`m worried ISP's will get centralized soon just like banks did in 2008. There are many hundred ISP out there in the world now, but i fear that giants like google and amazon could buy up half of them, and then it will be worrysome.
There is already technology out there that would let decentralized internet flourish, it's just that the spark wasnt ignited there yet.
Maybe we need a satoshi #2 for internet decentralization.
Same applies to internet too, ISP are centralized and regulated, and they can cut your wire anytime.
This is why decentralization needs to be as strong as possible with Bitcoin. Surely, it will be much harder to shut down nodes at hundreds of different ISPs than shutting down 2 datacenters?We should find a decentralized internet system as well if we are in the flow towards decentralized systems.
I don't think that there is one(?). Same applies to a datacenter. One phone call and you're out.
Same applies to internet too, ISP are centralized and regulated, and they can cut your wire anytime.
We should find a decentralized internet system as well if we are in the flow towards decentralized systems.
The spark of decentralization was ignited @ 2002 with torrents, and was perfected in 2009 with bitcoin, and now it seems like a juggernaut that will come to every system eventually.
I think largely everyone does agree to segwit,some are more trusting than others when it comes to the safety of deploying such a solution. so we talk about it, and we debate about if 2MB would be safer or whatever, maybe during the debate it comes off as tho we do not support it. but we are in the middle of debate, when it comes down to the choice of segwit or no segwit, we'll take segwit, despite our feelings.
That's rather redundant. If you are in support of Segwit then let Segwit be. Think about some sort of block size increase after it has been activated (with proper activation threshold and grace period).meh i disagree about the band-aid analogy.
in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.
Which will not be enough to accommodate a lot of people, not to mention if you consider the majority of the world doing transactions frequently. Bumping the block size limit is a band-aid.in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.
You can't DoS a data center, because that's impossible. You DoS an IP address. Each node has its own IP, regardless of whether they live in the same rack or 10,000 miles apart.
Doesn't matter, anything can be taken down.On the other hand, most residential internet contracts [and certainly the shit-tier DSL crap which you're concerned about sensorshipping] expressly *prohibit hosting a service,* so those nodes could be taken down *with a phone call to the provider/at the first sign of increased bandwidth use.*
So now you know.
Same applies to a datacenter. One phone call and you're out. So now you know.
On the other hand, most residential internet contracts [and certainly the shit-tier DSL crap which you're concerned about sensorshipping] expressly *prohibit hosting a service,* so those nodes could be taken down *with a phone call to the provider/at the first sign of increased bandwidth use.*
If I'm running bitcoin-qt in my laptop, which is simultaneously my p2p wallet and a node, am I running a service?
Certainly not more than running a p2p torrent app.
Maybe. But here's what I said earlier on that:
Quote
Thin blocks is a good premise, I'd like to see it adequately tested. Unfortunately the BU team is very limited in developers and resources and I'm not convinced any of their code is sufficiently regression tested. It also doesn't seem clear yet that it would be an adequate replacement for the relay network. But yes, that is the idea -- closing relay bottlenecks which especially hurt smaller miners as load increases. Core has already addressed a lot of the non-relay bandwidth issues (blocksonly, upload throttling, wallet pruning) in 0.12, so I'm less concerned about that in the immediate term.
agreed.
That depends. Segwit nodes won't be paying higher and higher fees, at least in the mid term. The latter...yes. But it's more of an issue for people/regions that don't even have the infrastructure for drastically bigger blocks. And node centralization is secondary to propagation delays. Miners are already highly centralized, and further delays in relay from bigger blocks will just continue to kill off smaller miners with orphans.
there are no "smaller miners" thothey ALL run off pools.
if you solo mine bitcoin, you have a 10million dollar warehouse filled with top of the line miners which you plan to upgrade regularly
buying a adequate internet connection is beyond trivial at this point.
You're basically saying anyone who isn't Bitfury or KNCminer isn't mining anymore. Firstly, that's not true -- some people have cheap/free electricity and/or good connections to obtain new generation chips. Secondly, consider the small miners (+pools) that are still finding blocks: Solo CKPool, myBTCcoin Pool, BitMinter, Eligius, GHash.IO, Telco 214, BitClub, etc... it's not just about an adequate internet connection. Chinese pools like Antpool and F2pool are already at great advantage because they build on each other's blocks (even without validation) before the prior block has been relayed to the p2p network outside of the GFW. And the majority of hashpower is inside the GFW.
Much of the relay disadvantage for [smaller] western miners is due to this--time spent mining on the wrong block, and delay to send blocks to the majority of hashpower. Adding further delays in relay (by increasing the load transmitted) compounds the problem. Critical bandwidth/very short term propagation delays is the issue for smaller miners, not simply having a top grade internet connection.
click here
small solo miner do not exist anymore, its been years they have gone to pools.
please point to a small western miner that doesn't rely on a pool to build the block.
That's just a strawman. I'm talking about pools, and everything I've said applies to them. Re-read the post, please. Hint: compare pools by hash power.
thin blocks.
thats the key!
Maybe. But here's what I said earlier on that:
Quote
Thin blocks is a good premise, I'd like to see it adequately tested. Unfortunately the BU team is very limited in developers and resources and I'm not convinced any of their code is sufficiently regression tested. It also doesn't seem clear yet that it would be an adequate replacement for the relay network. But yes, that is the idea -- closing relay bottlenecks which especially hurt smaller miners as load increases. Core has already addressed a lot of the non-relay bandwidth issues (blocksonly, upload throttling, wallet pruning) in 0.12, so I'm less concerned about that in the immediate term.
That depends. Segwit nodes won't be paying higher and higher fees, at least in the mid term. The latter...yes. But it's more of an issue for people/regions that don't even have the infrastructure for drastically bigger blocks. And node centralization is secondary to propagation delays. Miners are already highly centralized, and further delays in relay from bigger blocks will just continue to kill off smaller miners with orphans.
there are no "smaller miners" thothey ALL run off pools.
if you solo mine bitcoin, you have a 10million dollar warehouse filled with top of the line miners which you plan to upgrade regularly
buying a adequate internet connection is beyond trivial at this point.
You're basically saying anyone who isn't Bitfury or KNCminer isn't mining anymore. Firstly, that's not true -- some people have cheap/free electricity and/or good connections to obtain new generation chips. Secondly, consider the small miners (+pools) that are still finding blocks: Solo CKPool, myBTCcoin Pool, BitMinter, Eligius, GHash.IO, Telco 214, BitClub, etc... it's not just about an adequate internet connection. Chinese pools like Antpool and F2pool are already at great advantage because they build on each other's blocks (even without validation) before the prior block has been relayed to the p2p network outside of the GFW. And the majority of hashpower is inside the GFW.
Much of the relay disadvantage for [smaller] western miners is due to this--time spent mining on the wrong block, and delay to send blocks to the majority of hashpower. Adding further delays in relay (by increasing the load transmitted) compounds the problem. Critical bandwidth/very short term propagation delays is the issue for smaller miners, not simply having a top grade internet connection.
click here
small solo miner do not exist anymore, its been years they have gone to pools.
please point to a small western miner that doesn't rely on a pool to build the block.
That's just a strawman. I'm talking about pools, and everything I've said applies to them. Re-read the post, please. Hint: compare pools by hash power.
thin blocks.
thats the key!
Jump to: