Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19276. (Read 26606949 times)

ill add that LN is going to be 100 orders of magnitude more expensive and any TX FEE

how much is hours / days of trying to figure how to send your payment safely worth to you?

time is costly as fuck.

I'm not entirely clear how LN is propietary in that sense. Is Poon on the Blockstream payroll? How will they make money off it. Sidechains are Blockstream, so maybe there. But LN?

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-todd

start at
@30:35

" ... but the change itself is surprisingly small ..."

to me a surprisingly small change implies max a few changes to 1 file.

he says that its safer to do segwit then change the MAXBLOCKSIZE define

trud manure, every word, trud manure

Core hasn't accepted that yet. When and if they do, it's off to the races, but not before then.  You need to understand their objection. What if we upgrade to 2MB forks and nothing bad happens? It means that we could upgrade to 4 or 8 or 20. Then the Lightning Network time frame to even be needed or viable gets pushed back possibly indefinitely, and Blockstream gets no new VC money. 

They think this is is a fight for survival for them. They will go down if they lose and we don't yet know if they are willing to take us all down with them by resisting the majority and crashing the market. That's the 65 million dollar question. Will Core remain the reference client and bankrupt their own company or will they hold us all hostage and force us to fight it out with the inevitable market crash that would bring? 

I believe people usually do what's in their own perceived best interest. Core is trying to find out how badly the miners want that 2mb fork.  Is 2MB a request or a demand? They will not honer a request. They will honor a demand if they think it is genuine. The miners may not make one. Core still hopes they can politely refuse the miners without consequence. They may be right, but if they are, Classic nodes will multiply and the market will crash. 

We have recently seen a >$50 rise in price in the middle of a hotly contested election. This is insanity.  The buyers thought that the bigblockers had Core cornered.  They do, but have you ever seen a cornered animal just give up? What would the VC backers of Blockstream think of that? If you think that core cares more about what we think than them, you're dreaming. 

The sad think is that Core doesn't even have a problem. Larger blocks will grow the network faster and actually hasten the need for LN, but they're too stupid to understand that.

You sure have a funny way of reading between the lines. I didn't hear those insinuations at all.



Funny how you insinuate soft forks at a 95% threshold that don't boot anyone from the network is an imposition but a hardfork with a 75% threshold that does reject users upon activation is ok ...

Soft Forks cannot be contentious as core requires a 95 % threshold to activate. Soft Forks don't reject users from the network that don't want to update either. They can continue using bitcoin as normal with their old distro.

Let me clarify a few things :

1) User can still get the latest patches and releases and do not need to accept segwit ever .... Core is open source and another dev can pick and choose what they like out of future releases. In fact that is what classic has done and plans to do. So users can still be secure and never adopt segwit ever if they don't want its benefits.

2) Users who choose not to upgrade to segwit still validate not segwit transactions like normal... therefore nothing changes and them and their friends can continue to send txs to each other and fully validate all non segwit signatures. Older implementations that choose not to upgrade have absolutely no right to force those of us who do upgrade to give us our signatures of validation. If you don't like it than I suggest you reject our txs. By upgrading we acknowledge that we will only be relaying signatures for validation to upgraded nodes. There is no secret here , thats the way its designed.

lol sorry guys, i listen to the interview https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-todd
and i had to express my frustrations.


get me on the phone with petter todd, and hell hang up in under 5 mins, i wouldn't be able to stop myself

"
why are you going against what most poeple agree on, bigger blocks?
what do you mean small miner will need to start using pools? why you lying to me you BEEP BEEPING BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEPING BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP
"

ok all done.
lets go back to charts

I guess, I don't know. I'd have to read more about how political concepts apply to open-source projects.

What's this got to do with Soccer??

Nailed it.

They are not afraid of 2MB max blocks at all. They are afraid that when the sky doesn't fall... miners won't accept hot wiring Bitcoin into a settlement layer. They also fear the precedent that miners are in charge (a correct and good thing), not them.

 


When you want to use Bitcoin but your non mining wallet node doesn't work anymore... are you going to start mining your own blocks? Or are you going to simply upgrade your client?

Similar with segwit. Even if I hate it (as a SF that changes fee economics), I am required to upgrade if I want to keep validating all transactions on the network. Unlike a HF, someone not paying attention won't even be aware that such a dramatic change has been pushed through.

Why not? As long as we're talking 75% supermajority and a grace period to upgrade before mining incompatible blocks, what's the problem?  A few people may not get the upgrade memo in time? THAT's your big objection?

Elections are messy, expensive and inefficient. Would you prefer a government without them?

Coin



Explanation

haha! hey adam, how about some soccertalk? i heard manchester united got sacked tonight? 

Feel free to try to change the subject. But Adam might bite your hand.

That must be where all them Classic nodes are coming from...

But it's damn cheaper to set up 1000 nodes than to run a mining farm. Any big farm that wanted to get control of the majority of nodes could temporarily set up thousands of them running the software of their choice. How many nodes would $50000 buy? That kind of money's small change to a big mining farm.

folks? still that block-discussion going on?

isnt it obv meanwhile? classic wont succeed, miners are hesitant to switch.

but core will have to accept a 2MB hardfork in 2017. miners want that.

so case closed. nothing to see here anymore.

... too much angst, it's all good guys.

Anyone can have an opinion, they are like AH, but only those who can code get to put ideas on the ballot, and only those with the best ideas point the way ahead.

But even if 90% of the miners are mining something, it's the nodes that determine the longest valid chain. That's why they can't just fork off at will. Isn't it?

everyone codes whatever feather they want

miners vote on the feathers they are ready and willing to accept

once >90% of miners are all accepting a specific feather it is turned on.

core is going to start using this method soon. ( or they said they would? another lie???)

I don't see any way to decentralize code development. Competing protocols doesn't seem to be the answer.