Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19766. (Read 26630344 times)

That's a damn good question, but don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the cripplecoiners. They're only conservative when it comes to the obsolete blocksize limit. Lightning networks, sidechains, segwit, well that's just innovation!

Coin



Explanation

Gavin had already long stood down as lead maintainer when he pushed his hard fork to the XT repo. Wladimir vander Laan has been chief maintainer since Sept. 2014. Trying to rewrite history is plain deception or just lying. Gavin made some major mistakes (notably BIP 16/17 and BIP 70) in his time but was an adequate caretaker for the tumultuous time Bitcoin went through while he was contributing.

The fee market will develop because the node operators want it to. They will raise the limit when the fees they pay for THEIR OWN transactions naturally incentivises them to want to ... that is the in-built incentive mechanism to stop fees going to infinity as the doom-mongers and catastrophic-cliff screamers will try to scare you with.

This system has been designed very well, the built-in incentive structures will only become apparent as it fully ramps up and comes on-line. We are still in the commissioning phase, just relax and watch if you don't feel like you can understand everything that is happening.

How does segwit fit with this critical infrastructure stasis analogy? Where garzik's plan does not.

I agree that most of the network didn't want to jump into the arms of a benevolently dictatorial Hearn, but that does not preclude future possibility of hard forking from the previously dominant implementation's centrally planned capacity policy.

You can't grab power you already have. Gavin was lead developer and shepherded Bitcoin into where it is today. Satoshi himself gave him the reins. it's the other core developers who are grabbing power, but I guess that's how you spin propaganda. Claim the opposition is guilty of the very sin you are committing. That 1 MB limit was a temporary kludge included when bitcoin had NO monetary value and was useful only then. Gavin knew that and has been trying to get rid of it for years. This fee market is just rent-seeking and it will keep Bitcoin a financial backwater if it is left in place.

Blockstreamers may know software, but they don't know business and they sure as hell don't know economics, so if they can't fix the scaling problem without changing everything that makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, then they need to get out of the way and make room for people who can.

Yes, there is a huge amount of inertia and for a very good reason, that is very organic and was to be expected if you have the right experience.

Most people will not be aware that actual operational software in critical infrastructure changes very slowly, much slower than bitcoin Core (which is very high risk by comparison but it is still 'beta'). 90% of fortune 500 companies run RedHat operating systems on their back-office servers and they have very long term support for old versions for those reasons. Apparently the Banks still have some COBOL code running on old mainframes that still do the actual monetary-base and settlement calculations, so-called "green screen" functions because they are too scared to touch it.

Nuclear power plants and oil-rig safety shutdown systems that include software hardly ever make changes to their code after it has been commissioned and the plant "goes live" with active material. It takes committees of programmers and managers poring over every line to get even the simplest changes into an active system.

The disconnect between what is happening here and what the public have been told to "want to happen" is astounding for anybody with any experience in high-risk industrial software systems. The bitcoin protocol is almost complete now and will hardly ever change from now or else it will risk catastrophic failure. It is just very, very unfortunate that Gavin and Hearn "went there" with the whole hard fork MAD power grab, against the vast majority of the development community's technically better judgement and in an entirely reckless manner for critical infrastructure software management.

SwampNode cost me $118.  The "burden" on nodes is laughable. We'll see how much of a burden segwit and  lightning network soft forks are.  If I can give people gold-plated security for pennies, I'll do it. I am doing it. I'll do it on another chain if I can't do it on Bitcoin.

After five years, we've only managed a six billion dollar market cap and you think that first mover advantage is unassailable?  It's greedy, short-sighted, risky and just fucking stupid. All you're doing is giving free R and D to the developers of Bankstercoin.

This argument can be made at any point, even if they're 1GB+ and thus is moot.  If one was inclined and saavy enough they could do the same thing and take down VISA.  What a flaw!  I can't believe Mastercard hasn't already done this!


And it will proceed just like it has in every instance thus far.  Higher fees get your transaction through.  You want to pay lower fees? Fine, do so and wait.  If there was going to be a 'fullblocalypse' it would have likely occurred already, but guess what? It hasn't.

Sure, just like when everyone jumped to LTC, or any other alt during all of those recent 'stress-tests'.  Oh, wait, they didn't.

It's obvious you're running around in circles in a world of what-ifs and hypotheticals and ignoring the real world data that has been collected thus far.  Anything is possible, but what has been shown to *likely* happen contradicts all of your points of fear mongering.

Take a look at the most recent blocks found and their size.  If any of the BS you rant about had merit there would be countless people complaining about stuck transactions, the price would be crashing, and people would be screaming from the rooftops.  But they're not, are they?

But, in the absolute dismal chance any of your rhetoric comes true you better break open that cold storage and get every bitcent you own onto an exchange ASAP before some a malicious entity jams the chain up which you feel is inevitable because, buddy, the blocks are FULL.

https://github.com/jgarzik/bips/blob/87aacb6a58d3c63a5dd2082a566b763dd22f919e/bip-0202.mediawiki
Just a little hard-fork? Like a tiny salad fork? What's the harm?

You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.

Currently the network node operators are overwhelmingly supporting 1MByte block limits, so that is the reality of the technological limit on the network today.

How that changes in the future is the subject of much debate, as you well know.

I was attempting to get causality straight in BJA's mind.

450's.....now the question is - Can this hold over the holiday period?

The limit can be changed with one line of code. It is not a technological limit. It is arbitrary and artificial. And if there is no way to tell, then there is no way for you to prove that you are correct. Dust is a buffer because in previous attacks, the legit dust just didn't get processed in many cases and certainly didn't get resubmitted with higher fees, which allowed the network to clear away the backlog. In your settlement network, people will just keep resubmitting with higher and higher fees until some other form of settlement becomes competitively viable and the demand levels off. That's marginal utility, and it makes Bitcoin vulnerable to miner rent-seeking.

Coin



Explanation

People representing 90% of global hashrate disagreed during their panel in HK.

The idea that 1MB, "scaling" up to 1.75MB equiv with the gradual rollout of segwit, well into 2017... is the technological limit? That's BS and you know it.

The important part of their plan is that hard forks remain "controversial".

... there is no way to differentiate between "small legit transactions" and fee-paying spam if they pay the same fee, so no, there is no 'buffer' as you are imagining.

And you are thinking all upside-down. Nobody wants "to get rid of" TX ... for the last 6 years free transactions (and yes, abundant spam) have been tolerated and given gold-plated security that only the bitcoin blockchain can provide. At some point, the network becomes saturated because the demand for gold-plated bitcoin TX will for the foreseeable future overcome the network's technological constraints and ability to supply it ... so now the question is "what price?", hence fees.

The block limit is the technological limit that constrains the on-chain capacity, the arise of fees is the free market reaction.

When you've seen the lol about tonight, then you say interesting at that point/.

ma-ma-ma-ma-mega dump

You are not differentiating small legitimate transactions from hostile transactions. What I am saying is that when you get rid of the small legit xactions, the chain still fiils up with large legit transactions as bitcoin grows until it becomes vulnerable to a hostile attack. Those small legit transactions are acting as a buffer and you want to get rid of them.

Ya really, thx for pointing that part out......   never know though,