The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.
If one is to use Moore's law as the metric, computing power has increased by a factor of 64 in the time of Bitcoin's existence.
Lessee.... what's 1MB times 64? Humm....
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13569. (Read 26716992 times)
June 28, 2018, 05:04:02 PM
If one is to use Moore's law as the metric, computing power has increased by a factor of 64 in the time of Bitcoin's existence.
Lessee.... what's 1MB times 64? Humm....
June 28, 2018, 05:03:56 PM
Give me enough money and I have no care for your bitcoin blockchain
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
You can own all of the nodes if you want but that wont help you to attack the network. The moment you begin doing nefarious things users will open channels with someone who is not doing nefarious things and the network will very quickly self heal from your attack.
I have just turned the blockchain into a central bank, all transactions run through my nodes
cheap or expensive
Rofl what no. Havn't you been paying attention? It's a permissionless system. If you make it expensive people will use someone elses node. You understand that there isn't some limited number of slots to fill up where you get life time ownership of that slot right? You don't seem like you understand at all how the technology works. You remind me of a commenter from zerohedge not bitcointalk.
June 28, 2018, 05:03:29 PM
Hundred dollars off the low. still 33,000 longs
June 28, 2018, 05:00:14 PM
For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.
Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day.
Several hundred thousand peeps opening/closing LN channels per day seems a bit overkill currently, don't you think?
P.S.: No, not saying we should reduce blocksize either. It's good to have some extra capacity for the future.
June 28, 2018, 05:00:03 PM
That's ok. Everybody's merits are worth more now. 
You'd be surprised the number of merits that have been sent to deleted posts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=1762404 (check the received section)When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).
But in what scenario would this be viable? Perhaps, if we're at a situation where Bitcoin is seconded by another coin with the same mining algorithm, it would be a way to 'surpass' it (provided the ones doing the takeover had a large enough investment in the second) but this seems like an unlikely event. June 28, 2018, 04:59:02 PM
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.
This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make
Sorry you are right. FTFY
Well it's a yes to my original statement but once I revised my statement it became a question that doesn't apply to what I'm saying. But uh yes, it does move around small letter b bitcoin. So do I if I hand a funded open dime to my friend, that doesn't make me a force for centralization in the big B Bitcoin network.
June 28, 2018, 04:58:16 PM
I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it.
Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now?
No the other side was just shouted down and accused of all types of things as well as name calling until now they can fight back
June 28, 2018, 04:56:59 PM
I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it.
Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now?
June 28, 2018, 04:54:01 PM
For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument.
Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day.
June 28, 2018, 04:53:23 PM
Just a few short months and we can look back fondly, saying, "Damn, those were some cheap coins".
June 28, 2018, 04:52:15 PM
The point is that people who come in here criticizing Bitcoin for being somehow broken, or not working as intended, when the exact *opposite* is true, do need to be told to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
For all the good it will do.
NelsonMuntzHaha.png
June 28, 2018, 04:49:44 PM
Words have meanings. I am not renumerated by others for my BCH advocacy. Accordingly, I am not a shill.
Language changes news at eleven. Have you not noticed, you silly old fossil?
Lotsa the young now use 'shill' to mean 'advocate' or 'adherent' and they use 'paid shill' to mean that insult that scares you so, the older-fashioned 'shill'.
I am a bitcoin shill. You are a shitcoin shill. Deal with it lol.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of you use it simply as a catch-all to shut people up.
Again no. It is your problem not 'the' problem. You don't like it, fine, good, but own it, say 'my problem'.
I don't happen to agree, as I reckon we would all be better off if the language police could fuck off and leave us to shutting a lot more people the fuck up by whatever means necessary.
Hahahahaha... yeah... you go V8!!!!
We shut them up with good ole fashion logic and facts, and since they are nutjob and disingenuous trolls (redundant I know), that is NOT likely to work, therefore we do NOT disarm ourselves.. and resort to by hook or by crook. Exactamente. Civility would just end up disarming anyone dealing with peeps (bcashers, BIG blocker nutjobs, and bitcoin bashers) who fail and refuse to recognize facts and logic.
Words have meanings. I am not renumerated by others for my BCH advocacy. Accordingly, I am not a shill.
Language changes news at eleven. Have you not noticed, you silly old fossil?
Lotsa the young now use 'shill' to mean 'advocate' or 'adherent' and they use 'paid shill' to mean that insult that scares you so, the older-fashioned 'shill'.
I am a bitcoin shill. You are a shitcoin shill. Deal with it lol.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of you use it simply as a catch-all to shut people up.
You are coming off as delusional Ibian. I have no problem if folks are presenting contrary facts, but if they are paid shills and trolls they tend to act disingenuously and knowingly present false information and distorted logic. Thus, they deserve to be shut down, when they are NOT even trying to contribute to discussion, even if they are providing negative information (assuming that were presenting negative information without attempting to mislead and deceive).
Interesting collection of members
June 28, 2018, 04:36:27 PM
Just had to post...
June 28, 2018, 04:32:46 PM
Words have meanings. I am not renumerated by others for my BCH advocacy. Accordingly, I am not a shill.
Language changes news at eleven. Have you not noticed, you silly old fossil?
Lotsa the young now use 'shill' to mean 'advocate' or 'adherent' and they use 'paid shill' to mean that insult that scares you so, the older-fashioned 'shill'.
I am a bitcoin shill. You are a shitcoin shill. Deal with it lol.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of you use it simply as a catch-all to shut people up.
Again no. It is your problem not 'the' problem. You don't like it, fine, good, but own it, say 'my problem'.
I don't happen to agree, as I reckon we would all be better off if the language police could fuck off and leave us to shutting a lot more people the fuck up by whatever means necessary.
Hahahahaha... yeah... you go V8!!!!
We shut them up with good ole fashion logic and facts, and since they are nutjob and disingenuous trolls (redundant I know), that is NOT likely to work, therefore we do NOT disarm ourselves.. and resort to by hook or by crook. Exactamente. Civility would just end up disarming anyone dealing with peeps (bcashers, BIG blocker nutjobs, and bitcoin bashers) who fail and refuse to recognize facts and logic.
Words have meanings. I am not renumerated by others for my BCH advocacy. Accordingly, I am not a shill.
Language changes news at eleven. Have you not noticed, you silly old fossil?
Lotsa the young now use 'shill' to mean 'advocate' or 'adherent' and they use 'paid shill' to mean that insult that scares you so, the older-fashioned 'shill'.
I am a bitcoin shill. You are a shitcoin shill. Deal with it lol.
That's not the problem. The problem is that a lot of you use it simply as a catch-all to shut people up.
You are coming off as delusional Ibian. I have no problem if folks are presenting contrary facts, but if they are paid shills and trolls they tend to act disingenuously and knowingly present false information and distorted logic. Thus, they deserve to be shut down, when they are NOT even trying to contribute to discussion, even if they are providing negative information (assuming that were presenting negative information without attempting to mislead and deceive).
June 28, 2018, 04:25:36 PM
Give me enough money and I have no care for your bitcoin blockchain
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
You can own all of the nodes if you want but that wont help you to attack the network. The moment you begin doing nefarious things users will open channels with someone who is not doing nefarious things and the network will very quickly self heal from your attack.
Whats to attack
I have just turned the blockchain into a central bank, all transactions run through my nodes
cheap or expensive
Need to make sure I can then eliminate the competition and bully (fake attack on media companies and news) others to support my cause
1) put in my own politicians
2) buy the media
3) support tax and inflation to pay for my wars
4) change laws to get rid of the little guys
5) corrupt the public to fight against themselves with Racism, Sexism and any ism you like
etc etc etc
hey come along, wanna build a new world order
June 28, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
I've abandoned all hope. It's remarkable. I finally feel nothing.
That's good. Hope is inherently an anti-rational concept. It's good for religion and entertainment but no place for it in the pursuit of financial success. The real trick will be to try not to re-acquire it when this thing turns bull market.
June 28, 2018, 04:13:53 PM
I've abandoned all hope. It's remarkable. I finally feel nothing.
June 28, 2018, 04:08:54 PM
Give me enough money and I have no care for your bitcoin blockchain
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
You can own all of the nodes if you want but that wont help you to attack the network. The moment you begin doing nefarious things users will open channels with someone who is not doing nefarious things and the network will very quickly self heal from your attack.
June 28, 2018, 04:06:17 PM
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.
This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make
Sorry you are right. FTFY
Well it's a yes to my original statement but once I revised my statement it became a question that doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
Lightning network (like a credit card system) is the idea of large nodes inclusive of fees and mining working the chain and little nodes assisting in confirming it all (akin to satoshi's idea)
Analogy - Credit cards/paypal/etc on top of banking chain
The problem with lightning is who has the big nodes
decentralization is the key (the nodes or replace with sidechains instead)
whilst distributed lightning network is designed to centralize and control
It's a permissionless system. The nodes are anyone who wants to be a node. You can be a node if you want. How big those nodes need to be depends on how low of a fee users want. Individuals will have to make that choice. It will be a trade off. Do they want a smaller fee and a bigger node or a bigger fee and a smaller node or a few smaller nodes. That trade off will be a function of the demand for transactions and the progression of technology (assuming the bitcoin community is willing to increase the block size as technology improves, I for one support this).
Give me enough money and I have no care for your bitcoin blockchain
I will own all the nodes
"Referencing Rothschild on the banking system and government"
June 28, 2018, 04:03:49 PM
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.
This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make
Sorry you are right. FTFY
Well it's a yes to my original statement but once I revised my statement it became a question that doesn't apply to what I'm saying.
Lightning network (like a credit card system) is the idea of large nodes inclusive of fees and mining working the chain and little nodes assisting in confirming it all (akin to satoshi's idea)
Analogy - Credit cards/paypal/etc on top of banking chain
The problem with lightning is who has the big nodes
decentralization is the key (the nodes or replace with sidechains instead)
whilst distributed lightning network is designed to centralize and control
It's a permissionless system. The nodes are anyone who wants to be a node. You can be a node if you want. How big those nodes need to be depends on how low of a fee users want. Individuals will have to make that choice. It will be a trade off. Do they want a smaller fee and a bigger node or a bigger fee and a smaller node or a few smaller nodes. I will probably be a power user, I will probably have several open channels to medium or small nodes. Some starving pleb in Venezuela will probably have one open channel to coinbase or some big entity because he will need absolute best value and will be willing to sacrifice anything to scrape a few pennies. The average trade off selected by users will be a function of the demand for transactions and the progression of technology (assuming the bitcoin community is willing to increase the block size as technology improves, I for one support this).
Jump to: