Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19442.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: jbreher on February 06, 2016, 02:33:25 AM

Quote from: valta4065 on February 05, 2016, 10:48:02 PM

What? I was not aware the scaling problem was so high!

Yes. It is. The clear trend is that transactions per unit time are increasing. At some point in the very near future, bitcoin will hit a ceiling that it has not before hit - the situation where blocks are persistently full.

Quote

Why are most people saying that everything is fine and that scaling will come then?

I think BJA would argue against "everything fine". I'm in the camp of "things are gonna soon suck, and will continue to suck, until the pain rises to the point where most admit things need doing".

We are nowhere close to "everything will suck soon" ^tm. You guys have been saying that for a year now btw.

If we do nothing for a year (we will though) it would simply mean that fees might increase about a cent or two. Actually fees used to be higher in the past.

Segwit is quickest and easiest short term TPS increase anyhow.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: jbreher on February 06, 2016, 02:26:22 AM

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 09:06:32 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 05, 2016, 08:47:49 PM

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 08:02:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 07:58:30 PM

Meant to not change without how much consensus?

Edit: Some of it? All of it?

More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.

Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.

It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.

No because the chain they mine will be not considered valid by nodes. Nodes and users ultimately decide what bitcoin is.

Mining trigger is used simply because its something that can be measured. Node count can be sybiled.

You know any significant miners that are not nodes? No, neither do I.

Here's the dirty little secret nobody wants to discuss: pure nodes have no power. None whatsoever.

What miners want, miners will get. The only counterbalance is the prospect that the users will abandon the coin en masse.

Its actually the other-way round miners do not have real power. It does not matter or effect bitcoin users if miners choose to mine a different chain.

The only effect on majority of nodes will be that hash power would drastically drop, and therefore confirmation times would increase. That is only until difficulty adjusts.

But miners can not do that anyway as they would bankrupt themselves by mining a worthless coin. They have to mine the coin that has the nodes and users.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: valta4065 on February 05, 2016, 10:48:02 PM

What? I was not aware the scaling problem was so high!

Yes. It is. The clear trend is that transactions per unit time are increasing. At some point in the very near future, bitcoin will hit a ceiling that it has not before hit - the situation where blocks are persistently full.

Quote

Why are most people saying that everything is fine and that scaling will come then?

I think BJA would argue against "everything fine". I'm in the camp of "things are gonna soon suck, and will continue to suck, until the pain rises to the point where most admit things need doing".

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 09:06:32 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 05, 2016, 08:47:49 PM

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 08:02:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on February 05, 2016, 07:58:30 PM

Meant to not change without how much consensus?

Edit: Some of it? All of it?

More then 75% of hash power and a few big name exchanges, thats for sure.

Well, no. If any more than 50% of the hash power decides to change Bitcoin, then Bitcoin will change. It is a certainty.

It may be painful as the longest chain waffles back and forth between the changed and the unchanged, but eventually, the chain built as per rules agreed to by the majority hash power will dominate. This potential to waffle is why the threshold for activating the new rules is put at a supermajority level - say... 75%.

No because the chain they mine will be not considered valid by nodes. Nodes and users ultimately decide what bitcoin is.

Mining trigger is used simply because its something that can be measured. Node count can be sybiled.

You know any significant miners that are not nodes? No, neither do I.

Here's the dirty little secret nobody wants to discuss: pure nodes have no power. None whatsoever.

What miners want, miners will get. The only counterbalance is the prospect that the users will abandon the coin en masse.

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: abercrombie on February 06, 2016, 02:09:41 AM

is crypto done?? Huh

For you, maybe.

But this says its taking off

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty

abercrombie

legendary

Activity: 1159

Merit: 1001

is crypto done?? Huh

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: nanobrain on February 06, 2016, 12:34:21 AM

Quote from: spiderbrain on February 06, 2016, 12:16:47 AM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

I think Bitcoin will not, cannot grow until the governance model is changed. There is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

Yeah, this is also my thinking. Is there any sort of bridge-building conference happening? We need some kind of peace talks!

Way too much pride, testosterone and vested-interests [see above] for a sensible solution at this point.

Yeah. I can't wait for them to lose interest in the "failed" Bitcoin and move on to creating and "governing" a project with no such conflicts.

orpington

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 512

Price crashed again, woohoo!!

Good job Gavin with your shit-eating grin and all you "classic" FUDsters! Right on!

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

nanobrain

legendary

Activity: 1008

Merit: 1000

Dumb broad

Quote from: spiderbrain on February 06, 2016, 12:16:47 AM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

I think Bitcoin will not, cannot grow until the governance model is changed. There is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

Yeah, this is also my thinking. Is there any sort of bridge-building conference happening? We need some kind of peace talks!

Way too much pride, testosterone and vested-interests [see above] for a sensible solution at this point.

spiderbrain

legendary

Activity: 889

Merit: 1013

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

I think Bitcoin will not, cannot grow until the governance model is changed. There is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

Yeah, this is also my thinking. Is there any sort of bridge-building conference happening? We need some kind of peace talks!

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

cbeast

donator

Activity: 1736

Merit: 1014

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 10:26:51 PM

Thats why the best way going forward is to increase TPS via-segwit short term (superior to hardfork increase) and payment-channels, hard-fork, lightining, other methods long term.

No need for this contentious, chaotic hard fork attempt that is really power grab in disguise, and trades off decentralisation.

You can do that right now by creating a proof-of-burn POS hobby coin because that's what seg-witless is.

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 11:01:53 PM

1) devs had these ideas before they started their business to promote their vision not other way round.

are you saying they were aware of the scaling problem years ago and did nothing to prevent it? That would explain why segwit is still not ready.

Quote

2) devs have many bitcoin so its in their interest for it to have best possible outcome for bitcoin

No, they do not. They have admitted as much. That is why they need another way to profit from their involvement with Bitcoin.

Quote

3) devs have history of providing open source and free work and being motivated by problems, ideas not money,

The same can be said of Gavin and Mike. and Jeff Garzik.

Quote

4) accusations of conflict of interest can be made at anybody like Gavin, Hearn, coinbase etc. The accusations are made selectively only against core devs who have different ideas to you.

Gavin did not need to take over core development. He was the only person with commit access and lead developer until he gave it to others. It is ludicrous to accuse him of attempting to steal something he already gave away. The same cannot be said for Maxwell and the Blockstreamers.

Quote

5) Most devs, and people opposing classic have nothing to do with blockstream.

If you are developing a product, you obviously don't want someone using a competing product, and so most core devs would obviously oppose that, but that is not the same as saying most core devs oppose a blocksize increase. That is simply untrue. Many core devs want an increase, but enough oppose it that, according to Wladimir's idea of "consensus" (which he apparently thinks means "near unanimity"), the smallblockers have effectively veto power.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: DieJohnny on February 05, 2016, 11:10:13 PM

1. Bitcoin would have been just fine wtih a 2MB limit rather than 1MB. I think you missed that part.

It wouldn't. The code is written in such a way where if someone crafted a block with a lot of stuff in it, in a particular way, others would take 10 minutes just to process it.

DieJohnny

legendary

Activity: 1639

Merit: 1006

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 10:05:05 PM

Quote from: DieJohnny on February 05, 2016, 09:51:07 PM

The facts:

1. Bitcoin would NOT have failed if Satoshi had chosen a 2MB limit rather than 1MB, to say otherwise exposes you for the complete idiot you would be. Therefore, any FUD about 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda.
2. Adding 2MB now means nothing as far as the technology, network and platform is concerned.., refusing to do so is simply because you do not want to establish a precedent that you can increase the block size to address scalability issues. Why? because the necessity of a sidechain solution for scaling moves further down the road.

There is nothing else to talk about.

Facts:

1. Bitcoin functions perfectly with current limit. There is no urgent issue that is not FUD. It is a wholly manufactured non-existant FUD crisis. To say network is clogging, is FUD propaganda. I can send bitcoins all the time with no problems.

2. The crash landing FUD propaganda predicted by Mike Hearn has not happened, despite FUD being spread months back that by December (or latest Jan) the network would break down.

3. There is No reason to increase the block size limit now. To say otherwise exposes you for the complete ... Therefore, any FUD about need to increase to 2MB is laid bare as completely propaganda

1. Bitcoin would have been just fine wtih a 2MB limit rather than 1MB. I think you missed that part.
2. Scalability is a red herring, a distraction, it is something for you to argue about but has nothing to do with the decision not to raise the limit, but you didn't read my last sentence......

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 257

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:55:27 PM

Quote from: danielW on February 05, 2016, 10:48:38 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

Maxwell is the one attempting a power grab

FUD

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

badly needed upgrade

FUD

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

are acting according to their own interest and not the best interest of the network.

FUD

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:40:01 PM

is a clear conflict of interest with the core developers and Blockstream.

FUD

If we ignore personalities, and focus on pure technical solutions. Segwit is far superior to 1mb hardfork increase. Thats all as far as facts.

Calling my argument "FUD" is not a counter-argument. Why is my charge of conflict of interest FUD? Do you even understand the charge? Blockstream's business model does not work without a fee market, but creating a fee market now, before a critical mass of users are formed, will prevent the growth that is necessary for such a fee market to economically function. If that's FUD, tell me why it's FUD.

Its FUD because:

1) devs had these ideas before they started their business to promote their vision not other way round.

2) devs have many bitcoin so its in their interest for it to have best possible outcome for bitcoin

3) devs have history of providing open source and free work and being motivated by problems, ideas not money,

4) accusations of conflict of interest can be made at anybody like Gavin, Hearn, coinbase etc. The accusations are made selectively only against core devs who have different ideas to you.

5) Most devs, and people opposing classic have nothing to do with blockstream.

ChartBuddy

legendary

Activity: 2380

Merit: 1823

1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ

Coin

Explanation

billyjoeallen

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1007

Hide your women

Quote from: valta4065 on February 05, 2016, 10:48:02 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on February 05, 2016, 10:16:47 PM

The facts:
If half a million people wanted to send a single bitcoin to another address the same day, THEY COULD NOT ALL DO IT, NO MATTER HOW HIGH A FEE THEY PAID.

People know this and so we do not buy bitcoin. This is why the price is falling. Price will continue to fall or stagnate until capacity is raised.

What? I was not aware the scaling problem was so high!

Why are most people saying that everything is fine and that scaling will come then? It's really not going to help bitcoin adoption! Especially considering how many transaction are made everyday that are "automatic transactions" like faucets or games that are added to the human exchanges.

Most people are not saying everything is fine. The people who are saying that either want to sell before the price crashes again or are attempting to prevent or stall scaling. They are a minority.

Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19442. (Read 26709083 times)