Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 11081. (Read 26731025 times)

Bitcoin is whatever the largest amount of network power says it is.

Your side lost, yogi.

What of it? I stand by the statement. Do you find the disambiguation as 'SegWit Coin' perjorative? Are you embarrassed by SegWit? I maintain that the term 'SegWit Coin' is a useful disambiguation which makes it quite clear that one is referring to the BTC fork of Bitcoin. Though, admittedly, some (quite a few, actually) silly insecure ninnies got their panties in a bunch over my use of the term. To appease such snowflakes, I have more recently been using the term 'Bitcoin Core', which still provides the same disambiguation, while reducing the incidence of [~triggering intensifies~].

What would you have me do? For the eleventy-bajillion-and-oneth time, a large number of so-called 'nodes' provide no value to the network as a whole. Of course, I'll probably continue to run a full-validating, non-mining wallet client or three for myself, as I like to be able to create txs that need no intermediaries.

What will you do when groups spam your small blocks, leading to the txs you desire unable to get included in the chain in under weeks, and even then at a cost of $thousands?

Bitcoin is whatever the largest amount of network power says it is. Your side lost, yogi.

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.   

Wtf up with this Bcash?  

PPPPPPfffffffffffffffff



Wtf up with this Bcash?  

My bullshit detector is going off the charts. You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember? I do.

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

My bullshit detector is going off the charts. You're the guy who used to refer to bitcoin as "segwit coin" remember? I do.



Which is why I am intent on countering yours. Breher, you're welcome to have your own viewpoint, just don't act like its the only one that's valid. That shit is stupid, and infuriating. And I don't blame V8s for leaving you his rating. You've been proven to be incorrect in your assertions time and time again, which is by all accounts the same as providing misinformation.

Before turning it on, put your fingers in the plug to verify that there is electricity.

 

BTC is not Bitcoin? Interesting assertion!

We have already established that I hold BTC as well as my preferred SV and BCH.

'Come back'? I've been here the whole time.

Depending upon the sequencing of things, Bitcoin Cash may be no more altcoin than is SegWit coin (which is somewhat playfully starting to be referred to as Bitcoin-Jr)

My only intent is to counter misinformation. Those that are open to thought will save themselves.

You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.

In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.

At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.

Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.


Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.

Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.

What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.

... jbreher ... come back to team bitcoin.