Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19189. (Read 26608472 times)
February 25, 2016, 04:50:15 PM
great deal for quick buck right now.
February 25, 2016, 04:48:42 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
Ugly? UGLY?? This is exactly what we need, something that neutralizes the Chinese electricity and labor cost advantage. Without some way of doing that, we cannot regain censorship resistance. The fact that does so while increasing network performance is just a bonus.
The problem i see obviously is that Chinese miners will be reluctant to adopt it. But if they don't adopt it or something like it, I don't see much future for Bitcoin. Either it will stagnate or it will grow to the point where it becomes a threat to the PRC and they will take over the network.
This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the duel problems of scaling and miner concentration.
Is he wrong about this?
There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal
February 25, 2016, 04:47:18 PM
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
February 25, 2016, 04:37:02 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
Ugly? UGLY?? This is exactly what we need, something that neutralizes the Chinese electricity and labor cost advantage. Without some way of doing that, we cannot regain censorship resistance. The fact that does so while increasing network performance is just a bonus.
The problem i see obviously is that Chinese miners will be reluctant to adopt it. But if they don't adopt it or something like it, I don't see much future for Bitcoin. Either it will stagnate or it will grow to the point where it becomes a threat to the PRC and they will take over the network.
This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the dual problems of scaling and miner concentration.
February 25, 2016, 04:34:01 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
"which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth" -- less centralization, yaay!
"make many home mining operations obsolete" -- good to see you still know how to throw in a joke.
to much minning happens in chain anyway!
( but the sad truth, that which we ALL know, is that none of the chinese miners will stop mining in china )
February 25, 2016, 04:31:02 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
"which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth" -- less centralization, yaay!
"make many home mining operations obsolete" -- good to see you still know how to throw in a joke.
February 25, 2016, 04:00:48 PM
February 25, 2016, 03:34:24 PM
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)
There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.
you solo mine or pool?
February 25, 2016, 03:20:08 PM
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)
There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.
Which is unrelated to your concern as your stratum connection to the pool requires minimal bandwidth... or you are solo mining at home?
Here's kano's opinion...
Announcement: We will withdraw support from February 21’s roundtable consensus, unless Adam Back gives us a reasonable explanation why he quietly changed his title from Blockstream President to Individual at the very last moment — without anybody noticed. We feel we’ve been cheated. I don’t know how we can trust Blockstream anymore in the future.
Hmm, couldn't all the pools just go with 2MB and tell the devs who think they control everything to stop trying to make themselves feel important?Bitcoin is by design controlled by the consensus of the miners, not by centralised control.
It would seem that there are all sorts of parties trying to control bitcoin and I guess they all simply fail to understand the design.
Doesn't really matter how important devs think they are, if they want to be a relevant part of the blockchain decisions then they need to be miners.
...
BlockStream/Sidechains/SegWit all sounds a lot like trying pointlessly to control altcoins and make something like a partial SPV ... to me.
February 25, 2016, 03:06:43 PM
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)
There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.
By "many," you mean you and 3 other guys who got their USB hubs wired to the paddle wheel you're running off your mom's garden hose?
And your cantena internet's gonna be history anyhow, your neighbor's tired of you stealing his WiFi, so moot point.
Solar mining
Such backstory 
Pics of your solar/hydro setup, or it didn't happen.
February 25, 2016, 03:03:54 PM
February 25, 2016, 03:02:38 PM
Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?
The devs that signed the proposal were some of the more pessimistic and cautious core devs regarding raising the blocksize . Most of the other devs will be easier to hear and convince to rally behind once the technical details are fully elaborated.
There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies.
This is ridiculous statement to make. Devs have absolutely no control over the miners, merchants, payment processors, users. We all have to choose to run or upgrade to their software.... that is the VOTE! Their influence over our ecosystem is completely indirect because even those that hate them secretly respect their expertise and efforts. Do not become bitter that you cannot force devs to write and maintain code for you that goes against their advice or moral conscience.
Which is why...
If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means.
February 25, 2016, 03:00:48 PM
February 25, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
Many of us still mine at home , and even profitably because we have free electricity from Sunk costs (microhydro,solar)
There is also hope/expectations that products will start to be released in the future to recycle heat from ASICs, that will than incentivize more mining at home.
February 25, 2016, 02:56:30 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
I can see this being the final nail in the home-mining coffin...
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
awaiting your response to this.
February 25, 2016, 02:48:58 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
I can see this being the final nail in the home-mining coffin...
owait, that happened in 2013... nvrmnd.
February 25, 2016, 02:42:02 PM
Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?
The devs that signed the proposal were some of the more pessimistic and cautious core devs regarding raising the blocksize . Most of the other devs will be easier to hear and convince to rally behind once the technical details are fully elaborated.
There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies.
This is ridiculous statement to make. Devs have absolutely no control over the miners, merchants, payment processors, users. We all have to choose to run or upgrade to their software.... that is the VOTE! Their influence over our ecosystem is completely indirect because even those that hate them secretly respect their expertise and efforts. Do not become bitter that you cannot force devs to write and maintain code for you that goes against their advice or moral conscience.
February 25, 2016, 02:32:47 PM
You forgot the link... reading now..
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md
Initial Impression --
The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap)
The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year
The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO.
February 25, 2016, 02:31:45 PM
The Bitcoin Classic team will help realize Satoshi’s vision of making Bitcoin scale into a global peer to peer cash system, and not just a settlement network.
Blah-blah-blah... Big blcktards continue to abuse Satoshi's name in their failed altcoin fork. February 25, 2016, 02:22:15 PM
i'm trying hard to remain calm and get some anwers https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/did-blockstream-veto-the-roundtable-consensus-1376895
Blockstream and their employees are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
First, the conspiracy was that Blockstream was a unified cabal of developers with a vision to control bitcoin and a plan to force everyone to use their subscription sidechain products.
Now when the nutters find out that Blockstream has a contract which allows developers to independently express their thoughts without being coerced into following a unified company plan and are free to independently develop and contribute what they want with autonomy than they scream foul as if this is some attempt to further stall development.
f2pool could have been mature about this matter and simply emailed Adam a friendly email to clarify what the issue was , but instead they decided to stir up some really petty drama so they could appease the widest audience with their political games of using false nVersion's to give miners on their pool a false sense they are "voting" for classic when the nodes are really running core. These political games aren't that big of a deal in of themselves besides being unprofessional , but when they are done with the ignorance of the inherent risks that using false nVersion's creates, is really harmful to our ecosystem*.
* Using false nVersion's risk triggering safety warnings or potential forks.
You are conflating different peoples views. Both sides have a wide variety of overlapping consensus. If you start conflating peoples opinions it will necessarily look ridiculous.
Anyhew. What was the point of the meeting? Why would the miners agree to these concessions if the other side had only glass beads to offer back?
There's a lot of money at stake. Devs are gambling with the future of these peoples companies. The miners came to do business and expected the other side to do so as well. If the devs are so unconcerned with throwing everyone else under the bus they will discover what decentralized really means.
We'll see if Adams attempt to unring the bell will work, but it's pretty obvious that his and other devs commitment to this "consensus" is far less meaningful than the miners were lead to believe.
Jump to: