Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 21624. (Read 26609262 times)
May 30, 2015, 11:38:51 AM
So if Gavin is going to go develop altcoins I wonder who is going to set up to the plate?
May 30, 2015, 11:33:21 AM
Hmm...
May 30, 2015, 11:29:47 AM
...
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.
That's exactly why governments do not use bitcoin, and never will.
Finally, the forking of bitcoin is no more of a people's choice than choosing between 2 presidential nominees in US elections. Who proposed the bigger block size? You? The people? Or was it Gavin & Co.?
The same thing that cripples representative Democracy cripples bitcoin
I did proposed a higher block size when this was talked about a while back, the 1MB limit has been a hot topic for a LONG time, and uping the limit is the solution you come up with about 30 seconds into your analysis of the problem.
problem: the block size of 1MB allows for only 7TX per second
first thought: why not up the limit?
the reasons why not, include hypothetical scenarios that don't even lead to major problem ( in my view, large mining pools aren't a problem. )
and so the majority want to up the limit.
May 30, 2015, 11:21:09 AM
if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?
Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe that most miners in pools do not even know what is in the block that they are mining; they only get the header and hash of the transactions. If so, they will not be affected by block size increase. Is this correct?
I feel that the full implications of yesterday's stress test still have not sunk in. Before, for many opponents of 20MB blocks, it seemed to be a case of "not seeing is not believing". Still now, it seems that they would rather ignore the test than reverse their positions.
On the other hand, even an increase to 20MB a year from now already seems too little, too late...
yes i believe this is the case right now, meaning that the argument against the 20MB limit is pretty fucking lame.
not sure what exactly the stress test proved, you can successfully spam the network with TX but no one cares because TX with a fee still go through ahead of minimal fee spam TX's. If you spam the network we will allow it but the confirmation time on that spamming will be slow, fucking inconvenient isn't it?
20MB limit update is in preparation for higher TX vol in the future, we are not really bumping up against the TX limit these days, we only barely manage to go over it on a few occasions where the network was experiencing much higher than normal TX volume, with no serious consequence other than slightly slower confirmation time during this random period.
its not to little too late, its nice to see the community think about and solve these potential future problems before they become an issue.
May 30, 2015, 11:08:26 AM
if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?
Correct me please if I am wrong, but I believe that most miners in pools do not even know what is in the block that they are mining; they only get the header and hash of the transactions. If so, they will not be affected by block size increase. Is this correct?
I feel that the full implications of yesterday's stress test still have not sunk in. Before, for many opponents of 20MB blocks, it seemed to be a case of "not seeing is not believing". Still now, it seems that they would rather ignore the test than reverse their positions.
On the other hand, even an increase to 20MB a year from now already seems too little, too late...
May 30, 2015, 11:00:54 AM
the fork with the 1MB limit is likely to get TX spam attacks backlogging it for years.
fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably.
fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably.
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
what's good is that the violence can only really come from the bottom up, not the top down. we have a system where the will of the majority always wins. If the majority wanted to keep the 1MB limit, then the coins held on that chain would remain valuable, making the TX spam attack economically unfeasible.
maybe in the future, a government will want to go to war or do something that the majority of the poeple don't want, they will fork their blockchain so that the government coins are gone or redistributed or wtv, suddenly the government is afraid of its poeple and not the other way around.
this is good.
May 30, 2015, 10:57:34 AM
May 30, 2015, 10:36:39 AM
Well this will be a mess:
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join
Are we on fork? Where is dev?!
there's no fork
and if there is,
the fork with the 1MB limit is likely to get TX spam attacks backlogging it for years.
fighting this update (coming in a year BTW), is like trying to convince your wife not buy a new purse, you can try but you will fail miserably.
May 30, 2015, 10:30:05 AM
Well this will be a mess:
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join
if your mining at a pool do you even need the latest TX history? can't the pool deal with validating TX and let its miners simple hash away at the problem without worrying about downloading the latest block super fast?
if so upping the limit doesn't really affect miners, of course it make solo mining more costly, but literally no one does this unless they are already a huge operation in which case getting a good internet connection is no problem...
and is it really all that hard to download 10-20MB? doesn't that take like 10seconds tops, even on a relatively cheap home connection?
cant solo miners get the next problem to solve right away and slowly download the block while hashing away at the problem?
I not sure, but i think there is a all of fuss about nothing
May 30, 2015, 10:25:45 AM
Well this will be a mess:
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34155307/
Gavin Andersen forking bitcoin, well joining a fork, then pushing for everyone to join
May 30, 2015, 10:09:41 AM
drama intensifies
http://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37u6ca/okcoins_response_to_czs_lies_and_desperate/
http://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37u6ca/okcoins_response_to_czs_lies_and_desperate/
Czs claims OKcoin is using fractional reserves which raises the question of whether the company is still solvent. OKcoin will refute anything he says but I'm not trading there if there is any possibility it will turn into another Gox.
May 30, 2015, 10:00:34 AM
'THE LIST' is forever growing.
Keep coming back Lamby my friend, we enjoy slamming you on ignore.
One day the forum might break because the server can't handle the ignore lists with hundreds of thousands of socks ignored.
On we go.........
Keep coming back Lamby my friend, we enjoy slamming you on ignore.
One day the forum might break because the server can't handle the ignore lists with hundreds of thousands of socks ignored.
On we go.........
May 30, 2015, 09:58:50 AM
Well thanks shorters. A slight discount on my new coins today 
Keep fighting the good fight inca, it'll pay off in the long run.We keep adding to our stash & hopefully one day we'll be the ones coming on here, laughing & trolling at butt hurt bears/shorters & trolls.
Haha, moon one day my friend
May 30, 2015, 09:57:33 AM
May 30, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Well thanks shorters. A slight discount on my new coins today
Keep fighting the good fight inca, it'll pay off in the long run.We keep adding to our stash & hopefully one day we'll be the ones coming on here, laughing & trolling at butt hurt bears/shorters & trolls.
Haha, moon one day my friend
May 30, 2015, 09:13:28 AM
Well thanks shorters. A slight discount on my new coins today
May 30, 2015, 08:57:28 AM
May 30, 2015, 08:54:36 AM
OT side note: http://www.shitexpress.com/ Pay BTC to have a piece of shit sent in a box to someone.
This could really boost adoption...
Am now bullish this is going mainstream with this shit. Who doesn't want to send a turd in a box to a friend. I voted crash below the other day lookis like I am a winner how low do we go?
I think "briefly break below" is still on the table.
6K dumped in 10mins in the late am's, smells like downward manipulation, will it stick?
May 30, 2015, 08:40:28 AM
May 30, 2015, 08:40:06 AM
OT side note: http://www.shitexpress.com/ Pay BTC to have a piece of shit sent in a box to someone.
This could really boost adoption...
Am now bullish this is going mainstream with this shit. Who doesn't want to send a turd in a box to a friend. I voted crash below the other day lookis like I am a winner how low do we go?
Jump to: