Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 5342. (Read 26709486 times)

Explanation

Maybe keep Segwit, but increase the block by 1 mb, and make a fork of that. See how it catches on. But fork it from BTC, not from the other ones which are already forks from BTC and forks of forks. Just start fresh from 0.21.1 (current version as of this post) and fork from there. You can call it BRH or something Bitcoin Richy? I dunno. hehe.. Or do serious research about the name. BBB.. Bitcoin Big Block.

You are the one who brought up segwit, Hueristic was asking about raising the block size limit, Marcus cast aspersions in big block advocates as a group. I replied to each of these, I did not bring them up. Until you can keep more than one thing in your li'l head at a time, there's no point continuing.

Yes, nothing can be done about Segwit. That was one of the complaints against it at the time.

Shutting down cheap Chinese mines is a good thing. Fewer miners is not a problem as the chain is far more secure then it reasonably should be. Likewise miners paying more to mine will weed out older mining gear thus increasing efficiency. Finally if miners need to pay more for power they are less likely to dump cheap coinz on the market and bitcoin prices go up, which is bullish.

You don't need 3k computer to run a node. You can easily get refurbished workstations for under $200 that will have enough cores and processing power, at least 16 GB RAM, and you can add either a brand new SSD or even a spinning platter and it will sync fine from scratch given a little time. After it has sync'd, it will stay in sync for several years or decades.

Enterprises need bigger hardware on their nodes because they perform other functions and act as part of the wallet, like gaming sites or exchanges. For personal usage, any brand new laptop I can find under $300 will probably work (not including Chromebooks).


If you are still using paper wallets from 2011, I would suggest you upgrade to current address formats of today, like ones starting with bc1qxxxxx instead of those starting with 1xxxx. They're reasonably safe today. I've seen someone move 40k BTC from a legacy address to a segwit address, it's still there.



There is at least one other thing different about those big block coins vs Bitcoin, they intentionally took out SegWit when they forked.

It would have been interesting to see if they took BTC as is and only added bigger blocks, but that's not what they did, so here we are and the market has spoken.

Explanation

The problem with Big Blockers^TM, as with many of those trying to push their own perspective of "how it should be done" to the Bitcoin protocol, is that they tend to think highly of themselves, a kind of superiority complex, claiming to "know what's best" for Bitcoin. They usually have a computer programming background and may even be very competent programmers. I guess most of them mean well, i.e., they genuinely want to improve the protocol. What they fail to realise is that Bitcoin is a complex system, and tweaking a parameter can have unpredictable consequences that can gravely affect its stability and performance. It's easy to criticize and suggest modifications, increasing the block size limit and/or other improvements, but this is not some application you're trying to improve, that you can easily replace with a new version if it fails. This is a trillion-dollar digital monetary network, that entire countries are (and will soon be) using as legal tender, so you'd better be absolutely positively sure you know exactly what you're doing before even suggesting any changes.

Oh, and BTW, there are at least two Big Block^TM live "versions" of Bitcoin: BCH (a.k.a. Bcash LOL) and BSV (CSW's creation). The toughest critic is the market itself. If these two shitcoins had any benefit to offer, as compared to Bitcoin, the "flippening" would have long happened, they would now be at the top of the "cryptocurrency" list, and everyone and their dog would be talking about them. Well, they aren't, and I've never heard anyone talking about them, except Ver, CSW, Ayre, and their propaganda sites (CoinGeek, their toxic reddit threads, etc.).

Block size changes should (and will) happen, but they will happen gradually, and after being excruciatingly tested for bugs and other side-effects. Personally, I see Bitcoin as a kind of living entity. Just as evolution, with its Darwinian "survival of the fittest" has proven to be the best improvement strategy in the biological domain, so it should be in the case of Bitcoin. A "survival of the fittest" strategy, with consensus as its core mechanism of choice, enabling slow, gradual, incremental changes, which, after a good amount of time and testing, will advance Bitcoin to a higher state of evolution into a better coin than it currently is. Sure, I'd really like to have one extra eye at the back of my head, 12 fingers in each hand and two dicks. Guess what. This may not be the best choice for me, despite what I may think. Mother nature has made us the way we are, because that's the best for us, for now. Bitcoin will evolve too, but we'd better not force changes to the protocol just because we think they're good for it, but which could cause damage to it in the long run.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. Not yet. When it is, it will be fixed by those who can fix it. Want to help? Go ahead, propose things, suggestions, improvements, let them be evaluated, scrutinized, tested. Be thankful you are part of this. Don't be bitter because your brilliant ideas are not immediately implemented.

Explanation

i dont need my full node (which i use purely for validating my own transactions) to run on a rPi, but it at least needs to be able to run on a (probably beefy) commodity computer and be able to sync from scratch in a reasonable time. so i dont mind needing a 3-4k (or even 10k) computer to run a node purely for my own verification, but once you need business class internet and seriously potent server gear thats when i have issues. i will need to trust other nodes at that point. SPV clients have thier place but not as my main check for my transactions and balances. i suppose spinning up AWS type stuff for a personal verification node is a possibility but that seems drastic and likely expensive plus i like my gear in house.

blocks at its current size may have issues but they work for me at this point and thats good enough for now. high fees at the moment? pay up, wait, or go home: pretty simple. ill wait for the bulging brains types to figure the best way forward.

edit: slow and steady. this is Prod after all. i like my coin STABLE. let the alts blow up their blockchains. believe me its nice to have paper wallets from 2011 that are as safe and usable as the day i printed them. cant say that for a lot (likely most) shitcoins from back in the day, or even more recent ones.

Explanation

Another political bullshit spin on the news using "crackdown" and similar terms, showing handcuffs in video and talking about PCs illegally mining on graphic cards which rules out Bitcoin completely.

What I mean are Bitcoin mining facilities with their own hydropower (water power) installations using small river as energy source as part of the land they own or lease, like this one:
https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2018/1/17/inside-the-world-of-chinese-bitcoin-mining

No one is stealing energy when they generate their own power (or build mining facility close to existing hydropower plant with contract to mine energy overproduction), and shutting down just means the river continues to flow through the plant without turbine, no environmental gain.

Explanation

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/tech/policy/article/3136780/chinas-bitcoin-crackdown-pushes-miners-out-xinjiang-qinghai-baidu-and

Does this include the big miners using their own hydropower installations? If so, seems like a stupid decision.

It’s because several Chinese provinces have told miners to cease mining. They are turning off machines & ready to relocate.

Will this mean we will see more DeFi shit on Bitcoin Blockchain…

Didn’t the Big Blockers win, I am sure they did,  Bitcoin Cash?  

Ah, yes, miners are having problems, and waiting for lower difficulty settling in.

The guy seems clueless. If a 'price crash' is a reason to forbid it, you should forbid the financial markets 

I wonder whether 'official inflation numbers' that the Dutch Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis deals with, have any intrinsic value