Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 18985. (Read 26608456 times)

Again , I'm not making a distinction between legit and illegitimate tx's. I want a robust network with dynamic tx fees where I really don't care if someone is attacking or spamming it. 

We don't have to know of the perfect ratio or balance to know we already started to have problems with node and mining centralization. More specifically, historical data suggests that over 0.5MB there are increasing centralization pressures and node drop off rate increased.

Thus I have no problem with 100 or 100 MB sized blocks in principle .(In fact we will need extremely large blocks for the LN to be completely successful) My concern is rather than focus on problems which are of least concern , we should first at least reverse the trend of mining and node centralization or at minimum if we absolutely have to increase capacity now we should include aspects that allow us to scale better in the future like Segwit accomplishes.

Bitcoin Undervalued By Over $200, Investment Bank Report Finds

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-undervalued-200-needham-report/

All you do by limiting transaction capacity is limit transaction capacity.  You have no way of knowing if you've restricted cost-externalizing xactions more than legit xactions.  It's possible that a higher percentage of xactions will be cost-externalizing on a near capacity network, because those are the only transactions that may make economic sense in a high fee environment. I'm not saying I know. I'm saying I don't know. can't know. and neither can you.

Your statement was a bit ambiguous , so I answered it with the assumption that you suggested developers stayed with core because that was the only legitimate implementation to pad their resume.

If you are insinuated that Gavin and Garzik aren't Experienced or "legitimate" developers , than I would have to disagree with you. The reason they appear to both work on core and classic is principally because their concerns and values aren't aligned with a majority of other developers. I.E... Gavin's own tests reflects that Classic can have a worst case scenario 60% node drop off rate, and he is fine assuming this risk where most other developers don't like this escalated form of centralization where we already have multiple centralization problems that we need to dig out of.

Ahh , you are reading into my statements and making some assumptions that I am not suggesting. I never said we should censor tx or data on the blockchain.

 I am only suggesting a protocol that allowed for the externalized costs to be considered and a level playing field where tx fees , inflation , and demurrage were equally shouldered by Fidelity or anyone else.

So go ahead and upload your virus signature, penis pictures, and spam to the network. I am perfectly fine if you wish to spend 7-10 dollars to do so per tx.

i cant tell if you're confirming or denying my statement

i get your point,

if you jump first i'll fallow

You are suggesting it is a popularity thing that developers are trying to pad their resume with the "principally important" implementation?

This seems highly unlikely because ...

1) When Developers aren't being paid, they are principally concerned with working on items they are technically interested in or that make sense(are feasible). Bitcoin Core doesn't pay any salaries , and all other sources have no restrictions on what implication to work on , in fact the only implementation to bribe developers to work on it is Classic and perhaps Bitpay's Bitcore(not to be confused with Bitcoin core).

2) Developers aren't idiots , if they really believed in Classics roadmap than they would simply move over , miner would instantly agree as they aren't against classic per say, and than Classic would become the reference implementation with their resume padded on the right one.
 

You can't control what kind of data gets written to a censorship-resistant database. That would be censorship.  Why can't you damn cripplecoiners get that through your heads? Who isn't being true to our values here?

You object to Fidelity getting fee discounts but not SegWit users getting discounts? You gripe about externalizing costs while you helped cause the value of my investment to lose 60% in the last 27 months. Kinda rich coming from you.

You can't have it both ways.  Censorship-resistance means people are going to do stuff with their freedom that you don't like. We tolerate that because it mean we can do what they don't like. That's freedom, if you can't handle it, Bitcoin maybe isn't for you.

Classic helps mitigate the selfish mining advantage the Chinese get behind the Great Firewall.  Faster block propagation means less of a mining Cartel for Fidelity et. al. with which to collude.

because all (legitimate) devs are core devs?

wow such hostitliy for aztecmaggot
who is aztecmaggot?

you know what its probably best i just delete his comment....

time for a new poll...


when will aztecmaggot slit his wrists & spare us from his complete fuckwittery?

(or get carted off to the looney bin)


Someone make it so

I apologize for insinuating you supported classic (still deserve an apology for your misleading insinuation) . What Implementation do you run?



Which makes the whole enterprise so pathetic because there is absolutely nothing stopping all or some of the devs from working on classic instead of core besides their belief that Classic roadmap and fundamentals aren't optimal. The 2 largest organizations who fund BTC development is the MIT media LAB and Blockstream and both have specific provisions to allow developers the freedom to work on any implementation they choose to unrestricted in their contract. Those 2 organization pay for a small fraction of the total developers and all the other developers are free to work on anything they want to as well because core isn't one company and isn't controlled by one entity but is a diverse and loose organization of many different people from many different backgrounds.

Classic even has an adopt a developer program where they are attempting to bribe developers to work on their implementation....and it still isn't working! The best they have come up with is hiring a few outside inexperienced developers and getting Sergio Lerner to agree to sometimes peak at their code and check to see if there are any glaring bugs being introduced out of pity for the poor classic users without a competent team of developers supporting them.

So why aren't developers supporting classic, XT , or BU ?

LOL! So typical for a "smallblocker" to assume that everybody who is in favor of 2MB has to be a Classic supporter.

TBH i even dont think that 2MB are somehow urgently needed at the moment or better said i dont think everything will fall apart if we dont raise the limit anytime soon. There is a lot hysteria in this whole discussion imo.

But what i really think came to surface in this discussion is imo that (like i said before) the community is being held hostage by developers that are (at least partly) acting completely immature, irrational and extremely aggressive to others that disagree even slightly and i dont even get started about that shitty censorship that has taken place. Not by Core itself but they could have acted more decisive in that regard.   

Like i said, a second or even third team is needed so when in 2 or 3 years the next crucial decisions are coming we are able to choose.

you are talking about Classic. i explicitly used "2MB". many users disagree with Classic and the surroundings of Classic, others fear to loose the Core team as a capable capacity in developing and future invention. so there are a lot reasons to stand against Classic or to divide from Core and go with Classic.

But if you would ask them just 1MB or 2MB without any of the bullshit that happend the last months i think its obv what would be the answer. Imagine a user poll: WITH Core team 1MB or 2MB? I think there is absolutely n doubt users would opt for 2MB.

I a way its kind of blackmail, cause nobody wants to go further without Core. Core knows that and says: OK, then no 2MB for you. And thats EXACTLY why the community has started to realize that a second CAPABLE dev team is needed, so the next time some crucial decision is coming up we wont be held hostage by one dev team and can say "F%&* you, we go with team B. deal with it."

Which is why I support segwit and core's roadmap. So typical for a classic supporter to spread misleading information by insinuating I wasn't in favor of larger blocks.


You are helpless if you cannot see the problem with Fidelity externalizing the costs. Some of these costs are permanent as well. They would be  bypassing all tx fees and having bitcoin users carry the burden of supporting the network through inflation , Demurrage, and higher tx fees where they paid much lower tx fees and incurred none of the other costs.  Fidelity wasn't interested in paying the normal network tx fee, they weren't going to be purchasing any bitcoins, and the only person they may have slightly benefited would be 1-2 large mining pools with a backend deal.


In other words , no new Bitcoin users would come on board through their action, our fees would increase from 7-10 usd to something higher with higher node drop off and more centralization, and they would pay fractions of a penny per tx in fiat directly to miners bypassing the normal fee market.

node count and hashing power would seem to disagree with that...
at best we have economic marjory on our side
but when you have all the miners in HK saying " gives us effective block incress or we use classic"  one gets the sense that the tables can turn fast.

You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users doesn't support 2MB blocks. And not only "majority" i would also say "supermajority".

I would actually say it's a perfect example of a use case. Bitcoins are database-writing tokens. That's what they are. Why do you object to them being used to write data to a database?  You object to facts? Hatefacts? You think it's even possible to control what kind of data gets written to the database, when that database was specifically designed to be censorship-resistant?   That's a special kind of hubris. King Canute ain't got nothin' on you.



You are living in a dream world if you believe a majority of users support classic. I understand it is difficult to approximate a uservote with all the sybil attacking/cloud node promotion going on within the classic camp but there are other ways to estimate support . One way is to compare forum volume and reddit volume for active users . Even with a large and heavy campaign to attack theymos for censorship/moderation r/bitcoin still has between 2.5-3.5x the amount of live users in their subreddit  than r/btc. If classic had the support you suggest it should be trivial for you to buy enough hashing power to mine more than 4-7% of blocks.

In fact , rather than sell all your coins , if you are so intrested in Bitcoin  and its health and decentralization why don't you invest in a bunch of ASICs so you can mine Classic?