Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16240.

fabiorem

sr. member

Activity: 1400

Merit: 347

Quote from: Odalv on October 04, 2017, 04:23:29 PM

2) if you dump BTC2X then there is a chance that your dump will be replayed on BTC

I'm worried about this. Noobs will be dumping B2X all the way down to get "muh free coins" and then they will be dumping BTC hard, which will make the price drop.

My only hope is that the noobness is so intense that they cant have any way to know how to "retrieve" so-called "free coins", and that the exchanges wont support it since it is not an alt-coin, as there is no replay protection.

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 06:08:53 PM

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 06:02:12 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:13:20 PM

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 04:52:01 PM

Quote from: Wexlike on October 04, 2017, 04:37:35 PM

What a boogie woogie without replay protection.. Angry

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Your inability to see the connection proves my point.

People that organize B2X fork don't care about B2X network. The more problems it has the better because it would be more difficult for people to transfer this shit to exchanges and sell it. All they want is crash Bitcoin network!

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 06:02:12 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:13:20 PM

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 04:52:01 PM

Quote from: Wexlike on October 04, 2017, 04:37:35 PM

What a boogie woogie without replay protection.. Angry

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

I don't see what your conjecture has to do with your earlier assertion. To wit: "The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]"

Or were you just so eager to get in a sideswipe insult that it mattered not whether your utterance had anything to do with the discussion at hand?

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth.

Internet was not design to attach picture to email.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT9kJq_Ogrk

Now, we have Porn in VR.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: d_eddie on October 04, 2017, 06:00:37 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:32:04 PM

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

On the contrary, LN and similar Layer2 technology can do much. Given a sufficiently large number of channels, kept open for a sufficiently long time, the transaction rate (summed over all open channels) can grow almost without limit. In reality, there will be practical limits on channel number and channel lifespan, so a block size increase will likely be needed at some point in the future. How big an increase, and when? I think we should find out by looking at real LN transaction flow numbers.

Did you:
a) not read what I wrote; or
b) end up being incapable of understanding it?

becoin

legendary

Activity: 3431

Merit: 1233

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:13:20 PM

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 04:52:01 PM

Quote from: Wexlike on October 04, 2017, 04:37:35 PM

What a boogie woogie without replay protection.. Angry

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

In general, big blocktards are technically and economically ignorant and don't get it. Without replay protection B2X fork is a blatant attempt for 51% attack against Bitcoin. Simple as that! People that burn hundreds of millions to organize this attack don't care about improving Bitcoin. They want to crash Bitcoin.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on October 04, 2017, 05:48:48 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

This is one blockchain, not the bloody Noah's ark. The limits of on-chain scalability are evident even to the likes of me...

So you're happy with a limit of getting 2% of the population onto LN per year, with no bandwidth left for any other other transactions (like, maybe, to rescind a cheating LN transaction by your channel counterparty trying to steal your funds)?

Fine. In the boxes next to your name, I'll check the 1MB4EVAH column.

d_eddie

legendary

Activity: 2520

Merit: 3038

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:32:04 PM

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

On the contrary, LN and similar Layer2 technology can do much. Given a sufficiently large number of channels, kept open for a sufficiently long time, the transaction rate (summed over all open channels) can grow almost without limit. In reality, there will be practical limits on channel number and channel lifespan, so a block size increase will likely be needed at some point in the future. How big an increase, and when? I think we should find out by looking at real LN transaction flow numbers.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:46:20 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:32:04 PM

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

We will need bigger blocks. I wouldn't even mind if we increased to 2x already.... if core would support it (which it seems they don't YET).

That said... LN will play a bigger role in transaction capacity than any blocksize increase.

Have you read what I wrote above? A person who does not yet have Bitcoin cannot use LN. He must first get Bitcoin via an on-chain transaction. So the absolute theoretical minimum number of on-chain transactions required per person is two - one to get Bitcoin, and the other to spend every Bitcoin he will ever own into a single LN channel. In this minimal limit, it would require -- at 1MB -- 60 years for every person on earth to be able to participate.

Accordingly, no. While LN might become an important adjunct, the most important dimension to work on is simple block size.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:32:04 PM

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

This is one blockchain, not the bloody Noah's ark. The limits of on-chain scalability are evident even to the likes of me...

wtf

bitserve

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1530

Self made HODLER ✓

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:40:54 PM

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:32:04 PM

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

We will need bigger blocks. I wouldn't even mind if we increased to 2x already.... if core would support it (which it seems they don't YET). In fact I would like they did... but they don't. So we will have to wait.

That said... LN will play a bigger role in transaction capacity than any blocksize increase. That's why I have never understood why some people insist in bigger blocks but were oppossed to Segwit and LN. It doesn't make sense to me. We will need both to really SCALE (not linearly) Bitcoin transaction capacity in the orders of magnitude (LN playing the bigger role in that increase of capacity).

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: bitserve on October 04, 2017, 05:32:04 PM

The step in [a] direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN.

Neither of which do anything to further the goal of onboarding the world. Whether or not we have Segwit or Lightning, 1MB blocks will require 30 years to get a single transaction to each person on earth. The only way to improve this is with larger blocks.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: AlcoHoDL on October 04, 2017, 05:25:40 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:03:25 PM

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average."

Over the long term, not a problem. How big was your disk a decade ago?

Note also that this is peak. We can tolerate transaction backlog, as long as it clears without too much time passing. Average is much lower. Note that the published paper makes a fundamental logic error. Using a peak figure as an input to an average calculation is either gross stupidity or simple fearmongering.

Now lets actually discuss how we get Bitcoin into the hands of each and every person. What's your solution for that? Hmm?

bitserve

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1530

Self made HODLER ✓

Quote from: AlcoHoDL on October 04, 2017, 05:25:40 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:03:25 PM

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Larger blocks are a step in the wrong direction. The reasons are many, and some are so blatantly obvious that it is pointless to waste time and energy explaining them in a forum post.

Instead, I will simply quote a paragraph from the Lightning Network paper [1]:

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

That's gigabytes, not megabytes... That should put things in perspective.

[1] Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja, "The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", January 14, 2016.

The step in the RIGHT direction was done a few months ago with Segwit and enabling LN. We will most probably need a blocksize increase in the near future (hope so, because that would mean an increased adoption of Bitcoin) but it will be as a support of LN being blockchain the backbone of the payment network and LN some sort of multiplier of its transaction capacity.

AlcoHoDL

legendary

Activity: 2590

Merit: 4839

Addicted to HoDLing!

Quote from: jbreher on October 04, 2017, 05:03:25 PM

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that will get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Larger blocks are a step in the wrong direction. The reasons are many, and some are so blatantly obvious that it is pointless to waste time and energy explaining them in a forum post.

Instead, I will simply quote a paragraph from the Lightning Network paper [1]:

"The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays, and currently averages hundreds of millions per day. Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit. If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average. Continuously, that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year."

That's gigabytes, not megabytes... That should put things in perspective.

[1] Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja, "The Bitcoin Lightning Network: Scalable Off-Chain Instant Payments", January 14, 2016.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 04:52:01 PM

Quote from: Wexlike on October 04, 2017, 04:37:35 PM

What a boogie woogie without replay protection.. Angry

The lack of replay protection would be a major problem for the B2X network, not for [Bitcoin Segwit Core - ed]

Yet it is core acolytes that are screaming bloody murder over such lack.
hmm....

Odalv

legendary

Activity: 1414

Merit: 1000

Quote from: elite3000 on October 04, 2017, 05:01:22 PM

Then it is ever worth the risk of claiming the forkcoins Huh

Weren't the chains supposed to be separated after the fork day Huh

This is a bit confusing

Yes it is. "forkcoins" can wipeout your BTC

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: JayJuanGee on October 04, 2017, 03:51:06 PM

empirical evidence pretty much shows that the 2x part of segwit2x is not really justified

Bullshit. The vision is the entire world employing Bitcoin. How are we going to get there? Nobody can spend Bitcoin if they don't already have Bitcoin. Have you thought about the limit of adoption even assuming the desire was there? How long will it take to onboard the world?

Currently it would take over 30 years to send each person on earth a single Bitcoin transaction. Think about that.

Lightning does nothing to alleviate that.
Segwit does nothing to alleviate that.
Schnorr sigs does nothing to alleviate that.

The only metric that matters in this is transaction throughput - pure and simple. To a first order approximation (i.e. with already minimal-size transactions), this is directly and linearly proportional to block size.

True, 2X is insufficient. As is 8X. But they are steps in the right direction. The only direction that can possibly get us to our goal. Larger blocks are a requirement for Bitcoin to be meaningful to humanity as a whole.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Like i said :

- Bitcoin XT (try to enforce 8Mb)
- Bitcoin Classic (try to enforce 8Mb & XTHIN)
- Bitcoin BU (try to enforce infinite & XTHIN)
- Bitcoin NYA (try to enforce 8Mb of weight ... the Segwit 2Mb block size)

Roll Eyes

We don't need replay ... because they already try from a very long time.
but, without replay, no airdrop ... Kiss

elite3000

legendary

Activity: 1073

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Odalv on October 04, 2017, 04:23:29 PM

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 04:16:48 PM

Quote from: Odalv on October 04, 2017, 03:58:56 PM

Quote from: becoin on October 04, 2017, 03:52:06 PM

Quote from: d_eddie on October 04, 2017, 03:17:29 PM

Quote from: bitebits on October 04, 2017, 03:07:50 PM

I think the declining BTC value of BCC indicates the market is pricing in the increasing odds of 2MB Bitcoin blocks becoming reality.

I think the declining BTC value of BCH (I suppose that's the altcoin you meant) indicates that a certain gang thinks their money is best burned supporting the next attack, so BCH purchases are being phased out.

Yep. Pretty much you sum it up.
RIP BCH. Hello B2X.
Next free money drop, please!

I'm not sure it is "Next free money drop, please!".
Your BTC transaction will be replayed on BTC2X.

Why should I care what is happening on B2X network or on any other Bitcoin [put-some-extra-word-here] network that is trying to mimic Bitcoin network? I simply take what they give me and dump it for bitcoins. Case solved.

They share same keys, same addresses. If you dump at B2X then they dump your BTC. (it is same network, the difference is small -> block size ) ... there is not replay protection

1) if you dump BTC then your transaction will apear on BTC2X and you lose BTC2X
2) if you dump BTC2X then there is a chance that your dump will be replayed on BTC

Then it is ever worth the risk of claiming the forkcoins Huh

Weren't the chains supposed to be separated after the fork day Huh

This is a bit confusing

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16240. (Read 26609874 times)