Is bitcoinity working for anyone?
I tried it in a few browsers but it's not loading properly for me. It gets as far as a basic HTML page, then stops . None of the realtime prices are showing in my browser. I had to switch to bitcoinwisdom for now, but I like bitcoinity's interface better.
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19641. (Read 26607973 times)
January 10, 2016, 11:56:21 AM
January 10, 2016, 11:02:02 AM
January 10, 2016, 10:32:59 AM
@AlexGR I hope you are right. But I think it depends on what markets Bitcoin gains traction in. I also find crashing into the block size barrier far more risky than a hardfork.
January 10, 2016, 10:23:07 AM
Look, I don't know how to code shit (in terms of BTC code), but I do know how to change a few variables / constants. That doesn't make me a developer or someone who can maintain my fork even if the market agrees that I found the right value for maxblocksize.
This is actually a good point.
Quote
The scaling issue hides many motives and I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes. I always found it suspect that some people are so hell bent on increasing block size that even if you tell them "ok, let's say we have a tech that effectively doubles the txs that can fit in a 1MB block, like segwit or something... why would you want it to go to 2MB?" and they are like "but it has to go to 2mb". Well, I call bullshit with them. That's hypocrisy. If the 1mb is an effective 2mb, then why would you need the 2 to become 4?
Why would someone, who would say yes if you asked them about a 2mb upgrade, be dissatisfied by a technological equivalent of a 2mb upgrade in terms of tx/s? What's going on here?
Why would someone, who would say yes if you asked them about a 2mb upgrade, be dissatisfied by a technological equivalent of a 2mb upgrade in terms of tx/s? What's going on here?
Segwit will take time to be spread to enough nodes and users to actually lead to a significant capacity increase. And that capacity increase will be more like 60-70%. Not double. Plus, there seems to be little advantage to this over just increasing block size, basically you can softfork it.
Yes, that's why I'm phrasing it more like a hypothetical 2x - because it's not 2x in practice. In essence, a 2MB with segwit is actually >3MB without - from the numbers they are giving.
Quote
The GOOD thing about Core's roadmap is that their approach will fry a lot of brains in order to find scalability improvements through efficiency increases. I hope. But the fear is that whatever they come up with will be too late to avoid crippling congestion and, in its turn, the crippling of the bitcoin economy. Or, that capacity limitations will send money elsewhere. We sort of have to pray that Bitcoin stays in the periphery for a couple more years without losing its competitive advantage over other cryptos.
At most a few dust and spam txs will be prevented. The money transacted will continue to increase, even with a set limit in tx/s. Instead of getting, say, 300k txs per day with 1$ each, you'll get 300k txs with 10$ each. The USD-volume will multiply, because that type of scaling in value is not dependent on the number of transactions. It is inevitable that costly transactions will consolidate the market to higher value transfers.
End of year metrics can be like "Bitcoin payments accounted for 10bn in 201x and 100bn USD the next year, rivaling other payment solutions such as ......".
But of course the tx/s will go up too. I'm just giving an example here.
January 10, 2016, 10:08:25 AM
ie Cryptsy say goes full Gox....
Who gives a shit about that place? No doubt there'll be alt fans who'll be sad but that's about it. I don't think we'll be seeing headlines on the news if Wankcoin dies because of it.
I'm no fan of shitcoins, but I hate to see real people get taken to the cleaners by some guy whose claim to fame seems to be really fat fingers.
No offence Chubby..My fingers are perfectly proportioned. It's a bit freaky.
January 10, 2016, 10:07:29 AM
ie Cryptsy say goes full Gox....
Who gives a shit about that place? No doubt there'll be alt fans who'll be sad but that's about it. I don't think we'll be seeing headlines on the news if Wankcoin dies because of it.
I'm no fan of shitcoins, but I hate to see real people get taken to the cleaners by some guy whose claim to fame seems to be really fat fingers.
No offence Chubby..My fingers are perfectly proportioned. It's a bit freaky.
January 10, 2016, 10:03:25 AM
ie Cryptsy say goes full Gox....
Who gives a shit about that place? No doubt there'll be alt fans who'll be sad but that's about it. I don't think we'll be seeing headlines on the news if Wankcoin dies because of it.
I'm no fan of shitcoins, but I hate to see real people get taken to the cleaners by some guy whose claim to fame seems to be really fat fingers.
No offence Chubby.. January 10, 2016, 10:02:00 AM
January 10, 2016, 09:56:06 AM
Look, I don't know how to code shit (in terms of BTC code), but I do know how to change a few variables / constants. That doesn't make me a developer or someone who can maintain my fork even if the market agrees that I found the right value for maxblocksize.
This is actually a good point.
Quote
The scaling issue hides many motives and I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes. I always found it suspect that some people are so hell bent on increasing block size that even if you tell them "ok, let's say we have a tech that effectively doubles the txs that can fit in a 1MB block, like segwit or something... why would you want it to go to 2MB?" and they are like "but it has to go to 2mb". Well, I call bullshit with them. That's hypocrisy. If the 1mb is an effective 2mb, then why would you need the 2 to become 4?
Why would someone, who would say yes if you asked them about a 2mb upgrade, be dissatisfied by a technological equivalent of a 2mb upgrade in terms of tx/s? What's going on here?
Why would someone, who would say yes if you asked them about a 2mb upgrade, be dissatisfied by a technological equivalent of a 2mb upgrade in terms of tx/s? What's going on here?
Segwit will take time to be spread to enough nodes and users to actually lead to a significant capacity increase. And that capacity increase will be more like 60-70%. Not double. Plus, there seems to be little advantage to this over just increasing block size, basically you can softfork it.
The GOOD thing about Core's roadmap is that their approach will fry a lot of brains in order to find scalability improvements through efficiency increases. I hope. But the fear is that whatever they come up with will be too late to avoid crippling congestion and, in its turn, the crippling of the bitcoin economy. Or, that capacity limitations will send money elsewhere. We sort of have to pray that Bitcoin stays in the periphery for a couple more years without losing its competitive advantage over other cryptos.
January 10, 2016, 09:42:35 AM
[...]
Anyway, we need more people who actually code stuff that reduce the kbytes used per block, improve network transmission speeds, reduce cpu cycles needed for processing etc,
Not sure if serious.gifAnyway, we need more people who actually code stuff that reduce the kbytes used per block, improve network transmission speeds, reduce cpu cycles needed for processing etc,
Quote
and do that while maintaining the integrity of the system. Not people tinkering with an existing variable that has known tradeoffs if you set it lower or higher.
Because 1MB was not arrived at arbitrarily, but through exhaustive research and testing?
January 10, 2016, 09:42:11 AM
ie Cryptsy say goes full Gox....
Who gives a shit about that place? No doubt there'll be alt fans who'll be sad but that's about it. I don't think we'll be seeing headlines on the news if Wankcoin dies because of it.
January 10, 2016, 09:37:40 AM
The management of this forum does not seem to have the best interest of bitcoin in mind.
Is that why you're a donator?
January 10, 2016, 09:35:20 AM
I'm still hesitant. I don't really see how the bubble can un-pop in 5 days... that would be have to be some sort of record!
the power of FUD on the dark side of the BTC force is strong
ie Cryptsy say goes full Gox....
http://bitcoinist.net/cryptsy-has-moved-out-of-their-building-unannounced-nowhere-to-be-found/ Cryptsy moved out of building!
http://bitcoinnewschannel.com/2016/01/09/paul-vern-cryptsys-ceo-seems-to-have-flown-to-china/ Off to China we go!
Remember BTC is a crypto soap opera....just add some core dev issues on the patches...and China trying or making noises to stamp down
on BTC again ..useless thou that may be...and viola 250 usd btc again!
BTC and the Circle of FUD ..they should make a movie!
January 10, 2016, 09:21:28 AM
Bitcoin development has never been so exciting - BU, XT, BTCD, bitpay Core variant and now bitcoin classic. This is what open source is all about.
Well, development is about developing new solutions to problems. Not about arguing whether a particular variable should be set at X or Y value.
If that's "development" then 1000 versions could spring up each one having their own proposal for that particular variable (max block size). How would that improve anything? That's not development.
In the end of the day the only people making work that will actually help bitcoin scale more => are core devs.
KISS. Appeal to authority doesn't work against the market.
And vaporware development "works" in the aforementioned market?
Look, I don't know how to code shit (in terms of BTC code), but I do know how to change a few variables / constants. That doesn't make me a developer or someone who can maintain my fork even if the market agrees that I found the right value for maxblocksize.
The scaling issue hides many motives and I'm not sure how deep the rabbit hole goes. I always found it suspect that some people are so hell bent on increasing block size that even if you tell them "ok, let's say we have a tech that effectively doubles the txs that can fit in a 1MB block, like segwit or something... why would you want it to go to 2MB?" and they are like "but it has to go to 2mb". Well, I call bullshit with them. That's hypocrisy. If the 1mb is an effective 2mb, then why would you need the 2 to become 4?
Why would someone, who would say yes if you asked them about a 2mb upgrade, be dissatisfied by a technological equivalent of a 2mb upgrade in terms of tx/s? What's going on here?
Anyway, we need more people who actually code stuff that reduce the kbytes used per block, improve network transmission speeds, reduce cpu cycles needed for processing etc, and do that while maintaining the integrity of the system. Not people tinkering with an existing variable that has known tradeoffs if you set it lower or higher.
January 10, 2016, 09:09:17 AM
There have been deleted posts warning people of potential loss too. Then not long afterward there was a lot of loss.
Have you sold your bitcoins at the bottom? That was the time when those warnings appeared! January 10, 2016, 09:06:43 AM
Bitcoin development has never been so exciting - BU, XT, BTCD, bitpay Core variant and now bitcoin classic. This is what open source is all about.
Well, development is about developing new solutions to problems. Not about arguing whether a particular variable should be set at X or Y value.
If that's "development" then 1000 versions could spring up each one having their own proposal for that particular variable (max block size). How would that improve anything? That's not development.
In the end of the day the only people making work that will actually help bitcoin scale more => are core devs.
KISS. Appeal to authority doesn't work against the market.
January 10, 2016, 09:01:59 AM
January 10, 2016, 08:56:45 AM
Bitcoin development has never been so exciting - BU, XT, BTCD, bitpay Core variant and now bitcoin classic. This is what open source is all about.
Well, development is about developing new solutions to problems. Not about arguing whether a particular variable should be set at X or Y value.
If that's "development" then 1000 versions could spring up each one having their own proposal for that particular variable (max block size). How would that improve anything? That's not development.
In the end of the day the only people making work that will actually help bitcoin scale more => are core devs.
January 10, 2016, 08:39:06 AM
@inca: Did you know that "it is not just the [disgusting cockroach] body that can survive decapitation; the lonely head can thrive, too, waving its antennae back and forth* for several hours until it runs out of steam, Kunkel says. If given nutrients and refrigerated, a roach head can last even longer."-- http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-cockroach-can-live-without-head/
What's it like, finding a kindred spirit in a scurrying household pest?
*If you can call it thriving...
What's it like, finding a kindred spirit in a scurrying household pest?
*If you can call it thriving...
January 10, 2016, 08:25:59 AM
theymos is right. If you want to comment the future of XT altcoin you should NOT do it on BTC threads. Open XT altcoin discussion and say whatever you want to say. Nobody will delete your threads.
Raising block size has nothing to do with XT. You can stop the propaganda lies now. There's no such thing as centralized Bitcoin development. Anyone is allowed to create any changes they want and have miners vote for it.
Hear hear.
What is happening now was always going to happen at some point.
A fundamental weakness of bitcoin is the reliance on a few human programmers responsible for maintaining the reference client software run by the majority of the network. If a small cabal of people believe they can dictate the direction of bitcoin then as they are finding out to their chagrin the market will sidestep around them.
Bitcoin development has never been so exciting - BU, XT, BTCD, bitpay Core variant and now bitcoin classic. This is what open source is all about. The market will decide and if the market doesn't like 1mb blocks, over complicated soft forks, a fee market and RBF then bitcoin will simply follow another reference client and fork away. I can see the value proposition of bitcoin massively rising if that happens (no doubt significant volatility during the run up to a fork!) as it proves that the project cannot be coopted or changed by a few men - no matter their motivations - or indeed the outcome, whether it be continuing with Core or another team(s) instead.
EDIT: becoin you sound utterly preposterous trying to label other implementations of bitcoin clients mentioned above 'alt coins'. Such dishonesty simply marks you out as an unreasonable thoughtless drone.
Jump to: