Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19278. (Read 26606949 times)

if todd tomorrow makes it clear that he will never touch 1MB block size
shit could hit the fan? who knows...

yes i am forced to read between the lines a bit

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-bitcoin-game-34-bitcoin-core-dev-peter-todd
@ 19:30

he doesn't give a specific MB number at which point this problems a real problem for miners
but to me ( given everything else he says ) he's using to reasoning to justify not bumping the limit ever.

Yeah, but from what I recall, he began to make it in about the mid $370s and he staggered it a bit to add more and more to it until about the $390s...


So, yeah, it's possible that we may go back down into the $390s or even lower, but BJA was probably considering going into the $360s or lower, which seems a bit of a further stretch.. not impossible, but todays momentum seems somewhat inclined towards the up... with possibly a correction to lower $400s or possibly into the $390s?

Yeah, I'm guessing too.   

I believe that part of my point is that we cannot know exactly how lightning network is going to be implemented or even if it is going to be implemented because it is quite a ways down the road.   Yes, there are various core supporters who are working on various aspects of lightning network and even attempting to commercialize aspects of it, if it does become the road that we go down.  But really, it seems that we are quite a ways from that point yet, no? 

For example, seg wit needs to be implemented and we have to see how seg wit plays out, then attempts for lightning network to be built upon bitcoin after seg wit has been implemented.  And, really, there have been quite a few people questioning the extent to which lightning network will be secure, especially if the transactions are occurring off chain and then some of that value either would potentially fall into the hands of a third party entity or alternatively be taking place on a subnetwork that is exponentially less secure than the blockchain.

Sure it is possible that some of these ingenious minds will find ways to keep lightning network trustless and secure - and maybe even considering ways in which some of the vast computing power of bitcoin could be tapped into in order to also ensure security of such off chain transactions.  Yes, any of us are going to become skeptical if we believe that there may be insider trading or attempts to allocate value to some companies in place of other companies.  Yet, in the end, we already know that part of any quasi-free market system is going to have some financial incentives that cause people to contribute value with an expected ability to profit in some ways from that contribution later.

That's like trying to predict the weather a month from now. It's unknowable because things have to happen that can't be predicted.

You may be right IF

We don't have a fullblockalypse. (probable without at least a SW upgrade)
The ChiComs don't launch a 51% attack (unlikely but possible)
a terrorist attack hasn't been found to be funded with Bitcoin
No more MtGox type exchange implosions
MtGox Bankruptcy (200K!) coins aren't sold to satisfy creditors
We don't have a wave of hacker extortions that trigger a widescale crackdown
Satoshi doesn't move his coins
An Altcoin doesn't overcome Bitcoins first mover advantage
Bitcoin doesn't fork contentiously making two chains that both somehow survive (extremely unlikely)
An unknown vulnerability of the code isn't found and exploited
some completely out of the blue Black Swan doesn't take us out in some way nobody has even thought of yet.

Are you reading into his comments ? Where did he say that solo miners would need to flee to pools at 2MB ?

Are you going to also accuse Gavin of lying when he suggests there could be up to a 40% node drop off (solo miners run full nodes too) worse possible outcome with 2MB blocksizes?

The exception that breaks the rule.

Ok, well you were under a very specific circumstance of a country that didn't adopt the internet as quickly. Keep in mind that in other parts of the world things were much different. Broadband rolled out in 96 and going that far back isn't fair because the rate of progression has slowed and in some cases reversed (Softcaps limiting total bandwidth per month) while demand keeps increasing (HD video streaming)

There is a reason BIP 103 used 17.7 % per year ... because that is what matches todays data and is the most accurate forecast.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0103.mediawiki

This does include mobile bandwidth as well (In some areas , only mobile bandwidth is available)... so If we were to use just fixed bandwidth the numbers would be close to 50% per year... so would you be ok with a 50% a year blocksize increase? Of course , IMHO , we should be much more conservative than that because propagation time and network latency isn't also increasing at the same rates and really important networks like TOR are also not increasing at the same rates.

Think of segwit as follows (simplistically): It's a 1.7mb block, where the data are split in two files.

You don't need to make it 3.4mb - that's like 5x our current 0.6mb avg block size. It's just free room for spamming and bloating. Satoshi gave the spammers 1MB (minus legit transactions) of room to play with. I don't see why any of the next devs should give them 3. That would be gross incompetence / criminal intent. If actual demand for txs rise, you give them more room etc.

its best to load on a carbs b4 hitting the gym but wtv.


todd's crap about 2MB adversely affecting the mining landscape is insulting. does anyone actually believe that?

every time i've ask poeple to show me 1 small minner not already mining at a pool, they turn to poop throwing.

I'd like to see todd throw some poop, or admit he misspoke.

It doesn't work that way ... the 2 are only related insomuch that increasing maxBlockSize to 2MB with segwit is even more dangerous in certain aspects and less in others vs simply changing the maxBlocksize to 4MB.

You just want a capacity of 28 TPS right away is all ... and there is nothing wrong with wanting more cake... I want more too.... but can we just hit the gym first before we load up on carbs?

you already nailed it with BlitzNetwerk.  Too funny.

Who cares? We shall see new high above $1200 by the end of the year.

I was actually using the internet back in '95 so my personal first hand experience is the data.

To give you an idea, back in '95, my entire country was connected to the Internet through 2 major ISPs. Their total connectivity added up to ....512 KBPS, which had to be shared to >5000 users who were using dialup (typically 14.4 to 28.8 kbps - although a bad phone line could drop that rate dramatically) or leased lines (64kbps). Today total connectivity is in line with the 1000x figure (at least 500 gbps). My home connection exceeds x1000 gains if I connect to a VDSL and is at 500x-1000x with ADSL.

Coin



Explanation

segwit effectively doubles capacity for any block limit, double capacity of 2MB  is better then double capacity 1MB.
i feel we aren't fully taking adv of what segwit dose if we don't also increase block size

Why do you say that? I had near the worst possible timing.  Shorting over $420 makes sense, but the best thing possible for me to do is just break even. My guess is this thing will peter out at around $450. That was the short I shouldn't have covered.

Look, all the weak hands have seen shaken out in the two year bear market. The problem is that nobody in their right mind will buy now.  That won't stop a pump, because too many people are not in their right mind, but it can't be sustainable until TWO very serious problems are fixed: Mining concentration and scaling. Of the two, scaling is actually the easy one.

don't worry, altho we all strongly disagree everyone fighting what they think the best possible outcome is.
we'll pull through, learn somthing, and bitcoin will be better off due to this painful process.

1. You go into the airport and you are only allowed 1 bag that weighs a max of 100 pounds.  (1MB limit - current scheme)
2. You go into the airport and you are only allowed 1 bag that weighs a max of 200 pounds. (2MB hard fork - proposed scheme of classic)
3. You go into the airport and you are allowed 2 bags that weigh a combined 170-300 pounds depending the items (multisig txs) you carry (segwit scheme by core)

Why would you insist on whether it's one bag or two bags? Does it matter to you?

Similarly, segwit allows 1.7MB to 3MB+ of data. Just because it is in two separate data structures, doesn't mean it's less data or that it's ...still 1MB. It isn't.

If one file in your PC saves 1MB and the other saves another 700kb, it's still 1.7MB of data in txs (and not 1MB). And you also solve the malleability problem that is there for years.

you have absolutely no way of knowing if that is going to be true or not in the future   You are being either deliberately disingenuous or you have no idea the current state of flux within LN design ( because despite having a mock up running, it is still very much at the design stage)

** apologies if my posts are a bit behind the curve. Busy day on Classic.