Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17554. (Read 26713476 times)

You are talking to someone who has been running a node on dedicated hardware 24/7 for 6 years now.

I know the costs of running a node, and those costs absolutely dwarf, like it's not even in the same fucking universe, the money I've spent on transaction fees. I won't even count the time spent maintaining the node.

I've had to upgrade to a different ISP already because my node was eating all the upload bandwidth on my home internet to the point where browsing the web was unusable. I'm talking about top tier internet from a major ISP in a densely populated location.

I've spent less than $10 on transaction fees since 2011, and I've been generous (paying more than average since I mined myself). I paid transaction fees when blocks were empty and others were paying nothing.

So sell your we-need-to-increase-capacity-now-so-transaction-are-fast-and-cheap to someone else. If you want to spit on the people who have been supporting the network for years, so be it. Oh that's right, I was told today, by a BU supporter, that 3 nodes is fine.

While your nightmare scenario is technically possible, so are hash collisions.

Nonetheless, any node is free to use the existing invalidate block mechanism to ensure it will never follow the temporary loser eventual overtaker.


Are you asserting that nodes have the ability to cause one miner's solved blocks from reaching other miners?

Or, y'know, Roger/Jihan and the whole BU camp could drop the pouty man-child behavior, grow up and start acting like the professionals they should be in this $20B industry, accept SegWit, and then lobby for a block size increase down the road when things become more clear.  

Making it a hill to die on, now, is pretty insane.

the bitcoin model isn't 1 dev team 1 set of rules to rule them all.
 
BU is the bitcoin model

the sooner poeple comes to grips with that the better.

if you think this is the last "hostile take over" your nuts

You talk calmly like you know what you are talking about and you know what will happen. You don't and you can't.

It gets way more complicated and messy than that ... probably not many remember the GPU hashrate war that Namecoin and Bitcoin got locked into in late 2011, it was finally resolved by the release of a merge-mining client hardfork for namecoin (for the good of cryptocurrencies generally). The hashpower will jump from chain to chain depending upon which one has the best instantaneous profitability, there will be zero loyalty at all. All these advocating for a hard fork are clueless, they have no idea how mercenary the miners are due to the amounts of money they are outlaying continuously on electricity and other costs. The profitability calculations includes chain difficulty and price. So every difficulty retargeting on either chain will become an unstable lurch of hashpower from one chain to the other, with all kinds of pricing games and volatility on the markets associated to the lead up to it ... it will be ongoing and crazy volatility like out of chopstick's nightmares, day trading will become like a crazy feeding frenzy in a shark tank. If Ver is really crying about usability he would be running very, very fast away from a contentious hardfork to two competing hashpower chains, because it will definitely kill usability for months, maybe years.

Throw in the facts that you make about BU's crazy approach to replay attacks, orphaning and generally really, really unsafe extensions to chain-building (emergent consensus wtf?) then there is going to be chances whole fortunes will be wiped out if your coins move onto the wrong chain that suddenly disappears due to some crazy prize spike, an unfortunate timing for a difficulty retargeting and an attack on BUg, e.g. (reorgs).

Good luck, chumps. Enough of yous have seemed to welcome in Ver and Jihadi's version of hell to make this the new future ... welcome to the party you stupid fucking idiots, let's go back to blockchain grade school.  

The large block miners will not require small block nodes to propagate their solved blocks. Small block nodes will be routed around. Node operators can choose to follow the operational chain that is processing the bulk of transactions, or they can choose to follow the essentially non-operational chain which is nearly stalled. Nodes have that right, and they have that ability. Other than that, non-mining nodes are powerless.


Miners do not ask anyone if the block they have mined is valid.

How are those confirmations made? By miners mining additional blocks on top of them. Non-mining nodes have nothing to do with it.


Then users will abandon what Bitcoin has become, the price will drop asymptotically toward zero, and the miners will be left with row after row of rack after rack of hasher after hasher suddenly worth zero, having lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the process.

Nakamoto consensus. It's A Thing.


That would have been a defensible position 18 months ago, but that particular ship has long since sailed.


Not at all. I have consistently advocated this viewpoint. Lie much? Perhaps inadvertently, but a lie nonetheless.

Does BU even have replay protection ATM? From what I understand, they may fork it if they have over 80% of the hash, but what happens if the tide  turns, and the CORE 1MB suddenly has more than 50% of the hash? When the small block chain eventually takes over the BU fork, are the BU nodes going to switch to that chain and basically erase the forked chain from memory? That would be a disaster for anyone running the BU chain.

That's the exact opposite tune you guys are singing on user fees? Hypocrite much?

The Yefi's Guide To Quoting:

Adam, you need to tell these fools if they're going to fork to skip BU entirely and do just a plain 4MB fork with 8MB possibly to be activated at a future date like a few years from now.  BU isn't a good model and we've already been over this stuff before with Monero.

As long as there is no force barring you from firing up a node of your own, your criteria of access to trustlessness is satisfied. If you are unwilling to spend the rather negligible amount of money required to do so, that is not a fault of the system.

That does not matter... they have a lower volatility rate when the impact is not internal or a tighter window of opportunity to go full retarded and surpass their median / average / medium or what u can call it that needs to be or respect the same values as it did on the highs. Like lower highs and higher lows. But with time of months or years of stability most of the platforms calibrate the same and will reach a level of equilibrium between them.

I'll wait for that BU dip and the ensuing chaos first.  Should be some good dips to buy on both chains as people like Winklevoss and Ver power dump 200,000 coins at once on the chain they don't like.

we have devs, miners, exchanges, and wallets, not sure about merchant processing, altho when asked about altcoins bitpay use to say " we will always use the coin backed by the most hashing power period the end. "

Might as well cut the bullshit and just say whoever puts up the biggest fiat wall controls consensus, meaning no consensus even exists and everything is just a derivative of whoever has the most USD.  The only way for that to change is for bitcoin to become the world unit of account, but that's not actually possible because bitcoin can't defeat gold and silver on Exter's pyramid when metals are a far superior store of value.  Meaning if the USD dies, you will either be transitioned back into another scam currency by the same banking cartel, or the world will use gold and silver as a Schelling point for real money.

... still haven't bought back in yet roach? Those sold-out-bull sour grapes rants are starting to sound really, really droney and whiney, HTF could you miss that dump to $950 you moron?

That excuse doesn't work when bitcoin launched with higher than 1MB blocks in the first place so a "bitcoin can never fork" purist doesn't even have a valid reference point to stand on.  The fact is, just about everything regarding bitcoin (and every other cryptocurrency) is completely arbitrary in nature and wide open to rough consensus attack.  There are TWO ethereums.  There could be 100 ethereums tomorrow.  It's pretty much inevitable there will be more than one bitcoin.

This is why it's called a cryptocurrency and not money.  Currencies are arbitrary games that people create, while money does not fork or change.  I don't have to worry about Adam sneaking into my house and trying to fork my gold or silver.  Nobody should even own currency in the first place unless you actively use it or are a forex trader.  90% of this forum are basically acting as forex traders without the skills to do so.  It's also far more common for people holding currencies pretending they're stores of value to get horrifically burned than to profit.

Interesting to watch!

"Do miners control consensus? The 5 Consensus Communities | Bitcoin Q&A with Andreas Antonopoulos"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx3nsHGMUE8

I agree with this. But I'm not sure what can be done about it.

Another problem is, what if the colluding miners become corrupt, and block size has been increased so much that no one can take control back, or at least compete?  What if the corrupt miners then start deciding what functionality is and isn't acceptable in a release, to the dismay of the user base, exchanges and merchants? What if peer review and testing gets cast aside, and the software gets backdoored and full of holes/bugs with each release?

Is it still Bitcoin at that point? Do the miners really think users won't care if it becomes another bug-ridden, unadopted, centralized and controlled Chinese PayPal 2.0?

I've seen successfully-launched software projects absolutely crater after the initial brilliant team of developers was eventually pushed aside by a misguided & clueless management team, and replaced by a bunch of imbeciles.