Author

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13571. (Read 26716886 times)

legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
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.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.

I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin.  The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.

The networks wouldn't need any coordination.  Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel.  They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once.  A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.

I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work.  Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.

Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power.  This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one.  Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength.  It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.



This is satoshis "Last Vision"


He worked really hard on this before fleeing

sidechain

sidechain

sidechain
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.

If you don't see it, you don't see it.  But it is the tragedy of the commons.  Since BTC is permissionless ANYONE can write data to the blockchain.  Therefore they will use the resources available for profit to the extent they can.  The more is given the more will be used.  Some will have commercial (selfish) incentive to do so.

For example anyone building sidechains (think Counterparty) that anchor to the main chain will have to pay fees for everything they write.  These type of projects will chew through resources as fast as they are added.  It's the way of the world.  We don't see it yet because BTC is still in Pre-k.

The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.

In my opinion we want to be able to run full nodes on cellphones (eventually) and raspberry pi type hardware.  

This means we will just need to be uncomfortably conservative at least at the start.

Block size increases are not the answer to the TSUNAMI of traffic that is on the way.

Like I said... If you don't see it, you don't see it.
legendary
Activity: 2604
Merit: 3056
Welt Am Draht
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.

Give us thickos some bullet points then.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
People keep saying that and I call bullshit on it. Why would people start making more transactions just because the network has more capacity? It makes no sense at all.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

Most people who see LN and other Layer 2+ solutions as being the way forward for scaling also realize bigger blocks are an eventual necessity.  But I would want to be conservative.  Since shit expands to fill the space available we should see how we can do with efficiency BEFORE we add resources.  
legendary
Activity: 4242
Merit: 5039
You're never too old to think young.
Hey Jimbo.... when is your cashflow getting lined up in order that you will be able to add to your BTC stash at these "bargain" prices?

within the next month or two?

Waiting for repayment of a $20kCAD family loan. Last week I was told days or a few weeks.

This would be my first multi-coin purchase in many months and would replace the several small sales I was forced to make this year.
hero member
Activity: 750
Merit: 601
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.

The millions claim is based on L2 & L3 technologies that can now be developed because of Segwit, I can't convince you of it, beyond pointing to lightning as the first L2 tech, and my belief that developers will create better and more sophisticated L2 & L3 that will eventually scale up to that figure. There is no obvious ceiling, the limit is in the creativity of the solutions.

I don't advocate a block size reduction at the moment, the best trade-off in block size is yet to be determined.





legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.
If bigger blocks are a bad idea then why are you not advocating for a blocksize decrease? Why do we have Precisely the Correct Blocksize as things now stand? Also I'll need to see some convincing numbers for the millions claim.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!
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 have been following his arguments for years.  He tends to predict doom a lot.  
hero member
Activity: 750
Merit: 601
If you haven't seen this before it's worth a watch.

Andreas explains why Big Blocks are not going to work. (watch time: 5-6mins, Petabyte Blocks & Streaming Money)

https://youtu.be/AecPrwqjbGw?t=11m39s
Segwit in its current form can't handle hundreds of millions of users either. That was never what it was about. We needed a step up, a year earlier than we got it, and we had a few options to do so. 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.

Because Segwit is an upgrade that enables many new technolgies, L2 & L3. Technologies that will enable millions of TX's per second.

We don't need an incremental step in the wrong direction, as perfectly illustrated by Andreas, big blocks can never fullfill the Bitcoin dream, because PetaByte blocks are effectively impossible.

I guess if you think doing the wrong thing as a temporary fix, and incurring the associated Technical debt is OK. There is little I can do to defend segwit, but in my mind and the minds of many other developers, it's not acceptable, so Big Blocks are not an option at all.


legendary
Activity: 2310
Merit: 1422
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.
On the same page here man.
What shocked me is that the more the SegWit/LN bounty grows in value the more likely an anyonecanspend attack becomes likely.
Yes, sure as hell you (me) are not a bcash proponent.
But we have to question everything and never take anything for granted, especially when some of the clues are there.
 Roll Eyes

full member
Activity: 283
Merit: 127
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.

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.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
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.
They will.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bBitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?

Sorry you are right. FTFY
Is that a yes or no?
legendary
Activity: 2660
Merit: 2868
Shitcoin Minimalist
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.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 4393
Be a bank
@crandl
Rumors circulating that Facebook buying @coinbase for $18BB and investors euphoric after $8.5BB last round. Crypto experts think @RobinhoodApp a much better buy.for $FB .  #bitcoin #crypto @zerohedge
5:06 PM - 28 Jun 2018

FAKE NEWS
aka 'buy my bags'
legendary
Activity: 3808
Merit: 7912
Ok. I will learn to steal groceries. Let's do this thing. Cool

Are we so poor now?

Damn, this is getting ugly too fast.

 Guys, we don't need to resort to theft; there is food for hodlers:



 ...and less sodium means less blockchain bloat.
legendary
Activity: 3794
Merit: 5474
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.
Stop putting words in my mouth already.

I can't put words in your mouth, because your foot is stuck in there already.

Quit trollin'.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bBitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?

Sorry you are right. FTFY
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1278
Even if so: LN is by design centralized.

This is the big fallacy. Bro, Lightning Network does't make bitcoin centralized because Lightning Network ISN'T BITCOIN.
So it's not bitcoin being moved around?
Jump to: