Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20895. (Read 26607401 times)

Miners do not determine price or usage, the market does.
The market is everyone.

I'm sure there will be miners who mine on the shorter chain. And you know what? I'll spend on their chain, because I can. And to annoy everyone else.
I hope we can fuck this whole bitcoin system to the max.

Only if it survives all it is worth something.
For everything else there is paypal and friends.

I don't understand all of this talk about two chains etc. There is no way that is going to happen. The miners won't mine on a shorter chain, they will follow the longest chain period. The whole system is controlled by miners regardless of what devs and investors think of themselves. The only power and the only votes that count are those of the miners.

Coin
Explanation

Gavin should kiss the ring yes.

Dude has made a clown of himself and has started trolling the community and escaping discussion, challenge & attention.

No, not Lightning Network you lying shill. I'm talking about Greg Maxwell's flexcap and I would assume quite possibly a revision of Peter's BIP. No one can tell of course so we will see then but people have been working all while trying to avoid this unproductive mess.

What it will do if two chains coexist for any significant length of time is create a premium on post fork coins.  Adding post fork coins to the transaction will taint it so that it can be spent on one chain only.  After that, you can freely spend on each fork separately.  Basically we break fungibility and confuse the shit out of anyone who doesn't understand the technical details.

i might go open an account there and start buying my bitcoins through there.. and find a new exchange to trade on too.

You mean Lightning Network?  I am anxiously waiting for such "refined" proposals.  Hopefully with numbers on them -- which so far seem to be curiously absent from Blockstream plans.


Well, His majesty King Adam just conceded "2 MB now, then 4 MB in 2 years, and 8 MB in 4 years" -- and only then Gavin will be permitted to raise his hand again.  

yea well, wont bring circle et al. new users tho XD

You obviously don't seem to understand the reality of what we have to deal with here.

The millions of coins held on cold storage and paper wallets will NEVER risk the security of their holdings by starting to shop their coins around in the event of a fork. That's just outrageous to say.

I think that signed joint statement made by BC.i, Circle, etc.. is what turned the tides and caused a sense of urgency in the discussion. (At least for most of these guys, Szabo still sticking to his guns.)

Let it be known that every single word is patently false and a blatant misrepresentation of reality.

The Blockstream guys AND a group of other developers are apparently working hard behind the scene testing, formalizing, validating new & refined proposals that I imagine is the plan for them to present at the ScalingBitcoin workshop. There will be compromise and it is very doubtful 8 MB blocks will be in the discussion or contention. This proposal has generally been met with little interest from the network other than the minions of Gavin & Mike's lobbying. I would wager to say it will hover around Jeff's proposition as far as immediate increased is concerned but the whole proposal might see some reworking.

I plan to be there.

bwaahhaahahaa man this is sooo good!

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/636569665284775937

Except that it would be very difficult for ordinary users to get their trasactions executed in one chain only.  In principle, every transaction that gets issued, with any version of the software, will be seen by both sets of miners, and both will accept it as valida and try to include it in their blocks. 

The common view that the big-blockian branch will be "an altcoin" is incorrect; it is part of the FUD that Blockstream is using against the limit increase.  It will be no more an altcoin than the forks that happen now 2-3 times per day, and end with one block being orphaned.

If the size limit fork starts with at least 75% big-blockians and no more than25% small-blockians, as BIP101 tries to ensure, the small-blockians will be unable to process all the traffic in a timely fashion.  Mst transactions will pile up in the small-blockian queues, where they may remain for up to two months.  Meanwhile, the big-blockian miners will still be able to confirm every transaction with average delay 10-20 minutes.  That is one reason why the small-blockians will want to switch as soon as possible, if they realize that they are a minority.

Amazing generosity... 

You obviously don't seem to understand the peculiarities of a fork here.
For anyone holding Bitcoins before the fork, there'd be a huge incentive to spend their coins on the chain they don't feel like supporting. After all, they would still hold all coins in their respective preferred chain, while at the same time, they could go shopping "for free" with their assumed worthless Altcoins. Basically, the more convinced you are that you're on the "right" side of the chain, the stronger your motivation to push the "wrong" side.

Seeing that Blockstream rejected even Jeff's 2 MB attempted compromise proposal, it is undeniable that they don't want ANY incerase in the block size limit at all.  Their concerns about the effect of big blocks on nodes are just excuses.  In fact, they have clearly stated their plan for bitcoin: get the network into congestion so that users are forced to compete for space in the blocks by raising the fees.  Until most peer-to-peer traffic is driven out to off-chain solutions, leaving only high-value traffic on the blockchain -- such as settlements between hubs of some "overlay network".  Some Blocstream devs mumbled about fees in the range 10--100 USD per transaction...

Blockstream's plan makes no sense to me, and neither to Gavin and Mike.  I thought that Blocksream may have some secret agenda that justified wreching bitcoin, but maybe they are just unable to do such quantitative analyses and genuinely believe that their plan will work.  Gavin says that he has tried to convince the Blockstream devs to increase the limit for a long time, byt they refused. 

The 20 MB of Gavin's first proposal, and the automatic increases of BIP101, were clearly motivated by the FUD that Blocksrteam planted about hard forks (which in fact are not technically different from the soft forks that Blockstream likes).  A single increase to 8 MB, that the Chinese pools considered acceptable, would have been good enough; but critics would say that it would require another hard fork, a few years later.

he is not more famous than adam gubereuz .. no one in bitcoin is more famous than adam gubereuz.

Coin
Explanation

exactly, consensus robustness
pffahahahahhaha not even close. XD


szabo is on fiyaaa