Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19078. (Read 26609035 times)

let's be honest here

the true reason to delay blockincress ( we all agree block size increase is INEVITABLE  ) is to get poeple use to using the second layer sooner rather than later.

lol!

i was vaguely aware that lighting would require bigger blocks...

so we can have 133MB blocks years from now, but we have to wait a full year for 2MB.

because 2MB today would centralize bitcoin?

They don't fit in the block anymore.

OED good?
coup, n
1.1 A blow, stroke; the shock of a blow, engagement, or combat; = cope n.2 Obs.
2.2 A fall, upset, overturn. Sc.

You linked to Coup d'état which is more specific and not something I mentioned.

painting lines on chart and pretenting t o know where price was going in the short term was fun, what happened to the good old days... 

check out the definition of the word Coup it literally means to overthrow a centralized authority.

on a subconscious level you already have subscribed to the notion that Bitcoin has centralized and it has a centralized authority, one you identify with that is being threatened with a coup.

I on the other hand see Bitcoin as a decentralized system resistant to change, there is no Coup but only if you identify with a centralized authority under attack.

133MB ... eventually .... may take 30-40 years. Cores plan hinges upon payment channels settling to the main chain as a settlement network. The best hope now is the lightning network. The LN documents and developers have been clear from the  beginning that the block size needs to eventually increase a lot to scale. The 133MB number is from their own slides ...

https://lightning.network/

Perhaps if you did more listening and reading rather than speculating and assuming you would know this?

There is a lot of misinformation being spread for one reason or another about Core. In reality we are all "big blockers" except for a small group of Bitcoin must never change which is around 50-100 people worldwide.

make sure to talk to your dates about bitcoin, chicks dig it.  LMAO

Core-consecrated risks are meritorious, because aren't risks, they're safety.

I don't even have a full bitcoin. I'm just a college kid, sitting on 0.85BTC, trading what he can to increase his holdings. Maybe next halving, I'll be there. Meanwhile, my halving party will be a box of pizza, a few friends and (hopefully) a girlfriend.

You'll be wanting to go to the halving pool party to spend all your extra wealth

http://blockchain2020.com/block-420000/blockchain-2016/block-halving-pool-party/

WHAT?! well they have a strange way of showing it, people left and right are saying core doesn't want to scale the mainchain at all, any increase is a compromise in their view.

Yawn. Waiting for the pre-halving bubble got boring. Not that I think it's guaranteed to happen, but I?m confident it will. T minus 4 months.

Love this LOL'ed, I had a side bet (a like clockwork prediction) with "my other shillls"  that you'd come here and insult me.  

A majority of Core Devs wants ~133MB block sizes, that is the plan. The only difference is the order. Doing things in the right order is important because

1) It will insure bitcoin fends off attacks while it is still young and vulnerable

2) It will insure we don't keep kicking the can and avoiding using payment channels. This is a really serious possibility--
look at Classics Road map -

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

There is absolutely no mention of payment channels but they suggest adopting dynamic blocksizes in 3rd Q this year which do not address any centralization concerns. Gavin has gone on record suggesting that no limits would be just fine for bitcoin and many classic supporters want everything on the chain. Kicking the can could lead us down the path where we don't treat bitcoin like a settlement layer... This would be disastrous!


No, segwit includes better protections than a 2Mb HF and allows us to proceed on schedule with payment channels. Classic plan ignores and delays segwit.


That is not true... as you are ignoring timeframe ... most of core is suggesting a 2MB HF may be acceptable if there is widespread consensus and all the other improvements are done this year, than maybe mid next year it is possible.

A few months ago, I probably could not give any kind of shit regarding the blocksize debate; however, in the past couple of months I have begun to gravitate against at least what I perceive as being proposed within XT and Classic.  Overall the two proposal designs seem calculated to be fabricated technical problems that are structured in a way to cause and to exacerbate disagreement because they also attempt to address governance.

If these proposals were merely framed in terms of technical increases to the blocksize without attempts at hardforks and changes in governance or consensus, they probably would have gone through by now... But they are not about technical increases.

Therefore to me, the overall situation seems fishy and it has become very difficult for me to side with proposals to make change for the sake of change or to find bad motives in blockstream for example because from my point of understanding blockstream is building on the status quo, and if either classic or xt or some other proposal wants to implement a change, then they have to accomplish such by consensus rather than forcing it. 

Maintaining the status quo is not forced.. it is just what happens when whoever does not propose a solution that is convincing and achieves consensus of others by both evidence and/or persuasion.  I am not the person to convince..  Apparently it seems to be necessary to convince miners and developers etc that they need to switch to a new protocol.. which requires several steps.. propose, then get acceptance and/or testing and then implementation.. which has not been achieve with XT or classic or any other variation, from my knowledge... so accordingly, we stick with the status quo.. which is apparently core and the planned implementation of seg wit and the studying and considering of potential blocksize limit increases within months after the implementation of seg wit.  all that seems reasonable to me... only thing that doesn't seem reasonable is all the loud voices demanding change without showing evidence of such necessity.

By the way the price coming down in bitcoin is not evidence of a technical problem, but is instead evidence of loud voices complaining about no change and saying other bullshit that people believe either that there is a technical problem or that there is some other governance problem because people are complaining with loud voices (seemingly attempts at a self-fulfilling prophecy).

if there is technical merit to risk segwit
there is technical merit to risk 2MB.

infact Core says it themselves there is technical merit to risk BOTH.

If anyone is flowing this, here is the issue, "Bitcoin is broken, look if everyone on the planet tried to do 20 transactions a day. In the next 24hrs we'd need 3456 GB a day or 1,261,440 GB a year  no jokes we'd need it even if it happened next year. therefor we can't have bigger blocks today and we should stop all new blockchain growth now because its not possible to scale to that size."  

I like your optimism BitUsher, I share it, but I'm not as delusional as you, growth is another science unto itself, and the block chain as a commodity will never be used like that.  

I say let it scale in an unlimited fashion, if demand was ever 20 x 7B people we'd hit a much smaller technological limit early and fees would increase naturally until price adjusted peoples preferences or expectation to want interact directly with the blockchain.

HOPEFULLY payment channels are available before we have half a billion users making 10k micro transactions a day.

untill then 1MB is still not enough.