What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.
I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.
Ad hominem, followed by refusal to support, is duly noted.
Topic: wow ,almost 30,000 unconfirmed trans - page 2. (Read 13790 times)
I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.
Ad hominem, followed by refusal to support, is duly noted.
I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about
You still don't get it
I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?
Well, you are the person who initially tied my conversation with Carlton Banks into my conversation with you. You misunderstood what I was saying about the rate of change required to support onchain transaction increases, with our conversation that average recent actual blocksize directly contradicts your assertion that Chinese miners were at that time artificially sabotaging the system by choking transaction inclusion.
What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.
I've quoted your false reporting of my words already, trolling deeper now isn't going to work.
100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
Yeah j, exactly what I said, verbatim. As we can all see, lol100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.
Seeing as you are unable to keep focus for more than a page, allow me to complete the (obvious by implication) thought:
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately if we are to support continued adoption by direct modification of maxblocksize.
I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about
You still don't get it
I'm not talking about setting that maxblocksize parameter to 100Gb right now, I'm not even talking about it as such. I just show that you are pretty much disconnected from reality. At first, you start saying that there are serious issues at hand and eagerly try to prove your point. I can understand that, really. Then you jump into the far future and start claiming that everything will be tip-top even if the block size gets increased to 100Gb. But what about current issues after all, why they are still bugging us, today, not in the distant future?
If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.
Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.
Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?
What are you babbling about, Cton? I was merely asking you to clarify your declaration.
If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.
Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.
Why did you try to pretend that I said the precise opposite of what I really said, j?
If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.
Under what pretense? My boss is not invested in cryptocurrency, nor in killing it.
I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...
How come really?
How come really?
Either I am writing unclearly, or ...
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
You don't get it, absolutely
You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time, you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about even if SegWit activation is still undecided?
Everything he said is indeed really confusing, because all the existing technologies in the bitcoin only sourced in the mines, so for the issue of the confirmation late because there are indeed some cause they do. and most often done fee that does not fit by the standards that have been recommended or prescribed. So this is all because of human error and not because of technology that works in the bitcoin, if you don't believe then it could prove in the way that suits you
Either I am writing unclearly, or ...
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
You don't get it, absolutely
You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we will actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about?
[/quote]
You don't get it, absolutely.
I am pointing out that the argument against increasing the blocksize directly by changing the maxblocksize parameter, solely because today, technology dies not accommodate Visa scale upon a decentralized blockchain, is absurd. That is what the fuck I am talking about.
But of course, you know this already, and merely are pestering.
100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
lololololololol
Yeah j, exactly what I said, verbatim. As we can all see, lol
You can tell these people know they've lost when all they have is this kind of facile nonsense. If I was your boss, j, I'd dock your wages for not trying properly.
I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...
How come really?
How come really?
Either I am writing unclearly, or ...
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
You don't get it, absolutely
You basically say that we will already have all those capabilities (network bandwidth, storage capacity, processing power, etc) by the time when we actually need them, thanks to technological advances, mind-boggling break-throughs and other buzz words that people so love to repeat. Okay, let's assume that it might be so, since we can't deny that for sure (though this is debatable). But at the same time, you claim that we, today, are already hitting some limits (namely, the blocksize limit), and nothing is effectively done to overcome these issues. In other words, wtf are you talking about even if SegWit activation is still undecided?
Let's just hope we can reach 95% eventually. I always thought it was too high, but now that it's set that way, I don't see how we can change it without creating a lot of controversy. Let's just wait and an the bitcoin unlimited/bitcoin.com morons will eventually run out of money to keep bribing miners into that shit and we will see 100%
I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down
So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?
Well, we do not yet know whether or not The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will reach the 95% adoption rate necessary for activation.
There is a school of thought that non-activation of SegWit will indeed lead to an implosion of value due to a strangulation of utility. And this might further serve to protect the vested interests of those who invested in Blockstream. This may be why a rather extremely hogh adoption rate for activation was chosen - to ensure it did not ever get activated. This is a notion that requires accepting several connections that are not yet supported by evidence. However, it has not been disproven either, and some evidence does indeed point in that direction.
OTOH, GMax has recently made noises about the possibility of switching it on at 51%, so...
100GB every ten minutes isn't possible for any domestic connection today.
A blocksize of 100,000 times the current would enable 100,000 time more transactions than we are currently processing. Why the hell are you talking about this value in the context of what domestic connections today? Hyperventilate much?
Now show me a really existing networking technology, domestic or whatever, that would be able to transmit data at or over 100 gigabytes (bytes, not bits) per second farther than a few miles...
Again. Unless you expect this level of adoption today, we do not need such raw technological capability today. Why is this so hard to grasp?
I remember you saying a few days ago that there is a clear "unbroken trend up". Though I don't agree that it is evident from the chart you offered as a proof (it should be considered as flat there, at best), I do agree that the overall trend shows an increasing number of daily transactions on average. In fact, I myself suggested to use the amount of daily transactions as a metric for evaluating Bitcoin adoption rates. And now you start basically claiming that we are not there yet...
How come really?
Either I am writing unclearly, or ...
I think it should be obvious that when I say "we do not need such raw technological capability today", I am referring to the absurd notion -- articulated upthread by Carlton Banks -- that we would need to increase blocksize by a factor of 100,000 immediately.
Now I have got my payment really fast I think that we need more miners to get faster transactions because too much transactions is happening right now maybe prize for miners will go up and then more and more miners wil go to work even more and invest more and then fees wil be little higher and we will get faster our payments.
there is no way that 8 MB blocks would be accepted today in terms of safety and resource usage.
Interesting. So the 4MB that Core 0.13.1 can create is known to be absolutely safe, while 8MB is out of the question.
So where is the research supporting this published?
So, as I got it, there is still a non-zero possibility of SegWit being rejected by some miners, right? If a certain percentage of them does just that (i.e. reject SegWit), does it mean that SegWit won't be applied and all efforts put into developing it will be lost in vain? I don't quite understand why things are done this way in Bitcoin. If they are really done so, of course...
There is a risk that some miners will reject it, yes. But the window of opportunity is a rolling 2016 block frame, similar to how moving averages in line graphs operate. That means if Segwit signalling was teetering around at 92-93% of the previous 2016 blocks, even a bit of random good luck on the part of the pools who are signalling Segwit could tip it over the finishing line. That does of course, work in reverse also, bad luck for Segwit supporting pools could cause a dip in the acceptance signalling rate. I'm optimistic, although it could easily be a little more nail-biting than previous soft-forks.
By which time SegWit should be activated?
It's difficult to predict. Extrapolating the current trend is a little meaningless IMO, but you can see it here, FWIW
It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:
So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?
I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down
So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?
Like alot of these posts, it's cleverly framed.
It contains carefully selected elements of truth, in order to appear like a reasonable person making a reasonable assessment. Someone could easily get it this wrong.
The truth is that although some pools have come out against it, they're not a very high proportion of the current hashrate (~ 5%, which is the same 5% not needed to achieve 95% in 1 difficulty period for activating the fork). And the pools that haven't begun to signal support also have not explicitly ruled it out either, they simply haven't expressed anything so far.
So, as I got it, there is still a non-zero possibility of SegWit being rejected by some miners, right? If a certain percentage of them does just that (i.e. reject SegWit), does it mean that SegWit won't be applied and all efforts put into developing it will be lost in vain? I don't quite understand why things are done this way in Bitcoin. If they are really done so, of course...
By which time SegWit should be activated?
It seems that this thread has attracted a lot of users who are more or less experienced both in blockchain specifics and how the update system for Bitcoin works in general, and some of you will surely drop in to see what's new here. I encountered the following post right now and want to hear your comments on this:
So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?
I think that a crash is going to come once people realizes that SegWit vote is going to fail.
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down
Some of the biggest mining pools already declared that they are not going to support SegWit, and we need atleast 95% of the mining power to activate it, so it seems like it is not going to happen.
Once people realizes it then the price is going to dump back down
So, is it a real deal or just a usual bunch of crap?
Like alot of these posts, it's cleverly framed.
It contains carefully selected elements of truth, in order to appear like a reasonable person making a reasonable assessment. Someone could easily get it this wrong.
The truth is that although some pools have come out against it, they're not a very high proportion of the current hashrate (~ 5%, which is the same 5% not needed to achieve 95% in 1 difficulty period for activating the fork). And the pools that haven't begun to signal support also have not explicitly ruled it out either, they simply haven't expressed anything so far.
Jump to: