Coin
Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19594. (Read 26608322 times)
January 16, 2016, 12:01:47 AM
January 16, 2016, 12:01:43 AM
Thanks for the explanation on the fullness of the block 
So those few hours with totally full blocks are the sign of the beginning of the end of btc?
Well I suppose it will be fixed in a way or another.
So those few hours with totally full blocks are the sign of the beginning of the end of btc?
Well I suppose it will be fixed in a way or another.
No, the periods of totally full blocks show that we are hitting the ceiling of the transaction capacity. It's not the beginning of the end of Bitcoin (yet).
It will be fixed. Either by raising the transaction capacity of the network. Or the service becomes too expensive for a part of the users, and the growth of Bitcoin will come to a halt at a quarter of a million transactions per day. And that (given a current user base of only about 1 million) may be the beginning of the end of Bitcoin if the current users (like me, who are expecting growth) lose confidence and start selling their stashes.
Note, the latter situation can develop quite quickly, since the price of Bitcoin is almost entirely based on speculation about its future. Once the hoodlers lose their faith in Bitcoin's future, the price will collapse.
Well, that happened sooner than I anticipated...
January 15, 2016, 11:59:30 PM
This block thing needs to be solved once and for all now and never addressed again. "The Last Hardfork".
Anything less than that and Bitcoin will fail.
Anything less than that and Bitcoin will fail.
It's this kind of thinking of getting a silver bullet rather than an ongoing process that gets us in trouble
Bitcoin can't fundamentally change and shouldn't change. There is no real governance, nor should there be. It needs set rules and that's it. The idea that it can change is what's getting us in trouble. Sure, added features that conform to the set rules are fine but things that cause hard forks can't happen anymore. The bigger it gets, the harder its going to be for these changes. It has to be a silver bullet or nothing.
I agree that the block size needs to be on a fixed increase schedule, not a one time jump. I also agree that changes will get more difficult over time, but the only way to get the Chinese miners on board is to crash the market. Their business model doesn't work and they can't hold the rest of the world hostage with their slow-ass internet connections (that goes for TOR miners too).
100% full blocks now. It this the beginning of THE FULLBLOCALYPSE???
Since we don't know what the future holds, the only logical way to increase block size over time is to re-target like we do with difficulty. Exclude no-fee or micro-fee transactions from the re-target calculation to filter out spam attacks. Done.
No, we need a fixed blocksize doubling like we have a fixed blockreward halving. Entrepreneurs need to plan and adjust their business models just like miners do. Blockspace is really cheap to produce relative to the value it can provide. Think about it: if a 60GB database is worth 6 or 7 billion dollars, a 600 GB database should be worth ~4-10 times that amount. The size of the chain is positively correlated with the market cap.
January 15, 2016, 11:59:00 PM
Annnnnd....I'm back. 72 hours in angsty exile and you godless monsters! Look what you've done!!
Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms of another forum.
ThanksObama Blockstream Mike!
Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms of another forum.
Thanks
There's no drama like internet nerd drama.
Speculation: by April or May Blockstream will have buckled. But good gawd, what an ugly back and forth this turned into. I'm almost tempted to become a bankster out of sheer disillusionment.
January 15, 2016, 11:46:33 PM
Most are just frustrated at the infighting , politics, bikeshedding , and lack of consensus. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the roadmap. They want an increase like everyone else.
Yep, I often stick a middle finger in the face of my "friends" too.
You need to wake up and smell the revolution. Fence sitting can be painful.
January 15, 2016, 11:42:40 PM
Annnnnd....I'm back. 72 hours in angsty exile and you godless monsters! Look what you've done!!
Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms another forum.
ThanksObama Blockstream Mike!
Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms another forum.
Thanks
There's no drama like internet nerd drama.
January 15, 2016, 11:35:02 PM
We'll stick to main bitcoin branch. Period.
If 80%+ hash goes to 2mb AND exchanges go to 2mb, the old branch is going to be worth 0. Everybody knows it. People who are claiming otherwise are just flat out lying IMO. If that happened to Dogecoin or any other coin in the universe, it would be the same. Bitcoin will be no exception.
If one chain has that much hash power it is not even a contested fork.
Some forget about the exchanges. Good luck trading/using "old" bitcoins, when all exchanges (and obviously instantly payment processors follow) only accept coins from the "forked", now main chain! Imagine how any major change would be implemented when user base/industry grows 10x of todays if it so hard after years of debate to do it today.
January 15, 2016, 11:23:18 PM
We'll stick to main bitcoin branch. Period.
If 80%+ hash goes to 2mb AND exchanges go to 2mb, the old branch is going to be worth 0. Everybody knows it. People who are claiming otherwise are just flat out lying IMO. If that happened to Dogecoin or any other coin in the universe, it would be the same. Bitcoin will be no exception.
If one chain has that much hash power it is not even a contested fork.
Lightning Network has to raise block size higher anyway. There was never any plan to stay 1mb forever:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#Doesn.E2.80.99t_Lightning_require_bigger_blocks_anyway.3F
January 15, 2016, 11:12:01 PM
Annnnnd....I'm back. 72 hours in angsty exile and you godless monsters! Look what you've done!!
Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms of another forum.
ThanksObama Blockstream Mike!
Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms of another forum.
Thanks
January 15, 2016, 11:10:23 PM
You honestly think these miners would do this [endorse Classic]... if they were happy about the roadmap™?
Most are just frustrated at the infighting , politics, bikeshedding , and lack of consensus. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the roadmap. They want an increase like everyone else.
Some elements of segwit are likely to be introduced if their benefits outweigh the costs of complexity, and with the clarity/cleaness of a hard fork, the market will control the introduction and timing of such a solution.
If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know. Otherwise there is essentially is no difference in capacity between classic and core. Under certain circumstances Classic will have a slight amount of higher capacity , under others Core +segwit will have more capacity.
There are reasons where I can criticize segwit with , but am waiting to hear them from you to see if you understand segwit properly(and I believe the upsides outweigh the downsides)
January 15, 2016, 11:03:59 PM
I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
49% of the hashing power said "Ack" to to the idea of 2MB(which segwit essentially does). They are still all running core. We cannot assume their intentions towards acking Bitcoin classic 2MB until they actually change their code. My guess is there will be some consensus made between Core and Classic or some of that hashing power will just except Core + segwit if it gets rolled out ontime and merely acked classic because they wanted to reach consensus and move forward and would be happy with either classic or core + segwit.
If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know.
I personally would be happy with either proposal , but am slightly inclined to core for obvious technical reasons. Can you explain to me why BIP102 is technically better than core + segwit?
You honestly think these miners would do this [endorse Classic]... if they were happy about the roadmap™? Look what it did to the price today... they are in it for the long term, even willing to take a huge hit in the price today to secure a more certain and prosperous tomorrow.
Some elements of segwit are likely to be introduced if their benefits outweigh the costs of complexity, and with the clarity/cleaness of a hard fork, the market will control the introduction and timing of such a solution.
January 15, 2016, 11:01:45 PM
January 15, 2016, 10:53:52 PM
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin classic is BIP 102
Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -
Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining
Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining
Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.
I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
Also, nothing stops the two group to team up after Classic forks to work together and implement the Core upgrades later into the now Classic chain. Especially after they realize they (core dev team) can be routed that easily, not like it is good -or bad-, just a fact. Consensus by the majority of the network, is not that how bitcoin developing supposedly?
So, why is that not an option? Because rage??
Nothing stops Core or anyone else from developing Bitcoin before, during, or after a fork. The market decides what direction they want to go via:
January 15, 2016, 10:49:41 PM
I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
49% of the hashing power said "Ack" to to the idea of 2MB(which segwit essentially does). They are still all running core. We cannot assume their intentions towards acking Bitcoin classic 2MB until they actually change their code. My guess is there will be some consensus made between Core and Classic or some of that hashing power will just except Core + segwit if it gets rolled out ontime and merely acked classic because they wanted to reach consensus and move forward and would be happy with either classic or core + segwit.
If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know.
I personally would be happy with either proposal , but am slightly inclined to core for obvious technical reasons. Can you explain to me why BIP102 is technically better than core + segwit?
pave the way for LN
Gavin is not only supportive of the settlement layers and the lightning network but believes they are absolutely necessary for bitcoin.
Stop creating wedges where none exist... Unlike Hearn, Gavin is a respected and reasonable person.
January 15, 2016, 10:40:46 PM
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin classic is BIP 102
Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -
Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining
Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining
Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.
I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
Also, nothing stops the two group to team up after Classic forks to work together and implement the Core upgrades later into the now Classic chain. Especially after they realize they (core dev team) can be routed that easily, not like it is good -or bad-, just a fact. Consensus by the majority of the network, is not that how bitcoin developing supposedly?
So, why is that not an option? Because rage??
January 15, 2016, 10:32:24 PM
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin classic is BIP 102
Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -
Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining
Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining
Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.
I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy...
50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™.
Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products?
January 15, 2016, 10:30:37 PM
Agreed. Classic is between 0-0.25 MB more capacity without all the other benefits so I fail to see a large enough differentiation between them. The choice becomes almost a no brainer.
January 15, 2016, 10:27:07 PM
January 15, 2016, 10:23:36 PM
At least the freefall in price has stopped and leveled back a bit. Everything's going to be fine.
January 15, 2016, 10:16:11 PM
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin classic is BIP 102
Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now -
Classic - BIP102
Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits
5 developers maintaining
Core
Effective 1.75-2MB Block capacity
Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels.
45 developers maintaining
Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option.
Jump to: