Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[imaginary_username]

Do you have no other idea what to do with Bitcoin instead of fighting about scalability problems which have right now not a tiny whiny mizy bit of relevance for Bitcoin Cash?

Indeed, I'll much rather be participating in improving usecases, UX, privacy, and actually interesting protocol improvements, scalability among them. The manufactured nonsense campaign about a problem in the future that require some urgent psychological hacking related to changing a number to 128 or 10,000,000, and its related demonization of everyone who doesn't think it's a good idea, is crazy considering literally anything else is more beneficial. I have some reservation about CTOR for similar reasons - that whatever its "benefit" is won't be manifest for a while, it will be accompanied by other protocol changes anyway, and "we need to do it now or it'll be hard later" is not terribly convincing - but the bikeshedding-gone-wrong campaign on 128 and 10T are a whole other level.

We're struggling with adoption and distribution at <50kB non-notary transaction per block here. Nobody in the wider world give a damn about philosophical squabbling, what Satoshi wanted, what a number we're not reaching anyway is or isn't, or whether a protocol detail is or isn't "dev or miner" dictated.

Fail to spread distribution, liquidity and permissionless usecases against fiat and we'll be dead in a couple years, and it won't be from the friggin' halving. Stay real, guys.

 

[Norway]

@Shaun Chong from Bitcoin.com, the third largest BCH mining pool voted yes to BUIP 101. Awesome!

 

[solex]

Haha. Thought you would be pleased about that!

 

[Norway]

I'd love to see "EB:10000000" in a coinbase string one day

 

[Zarathustra]

The manufactured nonsense campaign about a problem in the future that require some urgent psychological hacking related to changing a number to 128 or 10,000,000,

It wasn't a "manufactured nonsense campaign" to demand to raise the limit when the 1MB limit was orders of magnitude above the actual size.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

@Shaun Chong from Bitcoin.com, the third largest BCH mining pool voted yes to BUIP 101. Awesome!

Congratulations! As I told you, I voted "no" not for fundamental opposition, but because I don't think it is needed to default on it. If a miner activates it, my BU node will be compatible with it.

@imaginary_username

We're struggling with adoption and distribution at <50kB non-notary transaction per block here. Nobody in the wider world give a damn about philosophical squabbling, what Satoshi wanted, what a number we're not reaching anyway is or isn't, or whether a protocol detail is or isn't "dev or miner" dictated.

Fail to spread distribution, liquidity and permissionless usecases against fiat and we'll be dead in a couple years, and it won't be from the friggin' halving. Stay real, guys.

Exactly. Maybe the environment is made such - with BTC strong in people's heads, investors rallying on every shitcoin, users not able to get through all this / not caring - that Bitcoin Cash can only lose, even while providing the best digital cash currency available.

I'm not sure if it is really good to just repeat Ethereum's ICO madness, but at least, good token on BCH are a really advanced alternative to expensive ERC-transactions and difficult-to-maintain Ethereum software. Maybe this will get us more attention.

Anyway ... Today I wrote about the Bitmain ICO, and I discovered some interesting ideas: No company is more attached to the success of Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash. If Bitmain just wants to preserve current income by selling asics, the prices of "the bitcoins" need to double until 2020. If Bitmains wants to repeat the success of 2017, prices need to quadripple until 2020. They are married to it, the whole income depends on if Bitcoin's price covers the reward-loss of the next halving(s).

The best part: If banks, funds, and so on - the chinese state? - invests in Bitmain, they too are married to Bitcoin's price. This makes me very optimistic

Edit: Maybe some waves are turning. Yesterday I wrote on my blog about the investment in LN company Acinq, and the only three comments are highly critical of LN, two praise Bitcoin Cash. I don't remember seeing this in the past.

 

[freetrader]

It wasn't a "manufactured nonsense campaign" to demand to raise the limit when the 1MB limit was orders of magnitude above the actual size.

That was many YEARS before the usage hit the limit. And the chorus of voices against the limit grew to become a sizeable community which recognizes that the limit needs to be kept high above even peak usage.

 

[Norway]

 

[Norway]

It's currently Even Steven on BUIP 101! 15 pro, 15 against!

Two of the votes are cast outside the voting system.

30 of the 41 voting members have cast their vote.

 

[Norway]

@Norway, given that voting on BUIP101 is fairly split up to now, and it might not pass, have you considered submitting your 10TB change proposal to Bitcoin SV ?

Their github has 'issues' enabled, so you could submit it to them as an enhancement proposal.

If BUIP 101 gets a majority vote, I will submit this to SV, ABC, XT and other implementations. But I need help, because I don't know how Github works.
[doublepost=1539113698,1539112897][/doublepost]

 

[Norway]

 

[imaginary_username]

It instead becomes a moment where people replace BU from their nodes. Remember kids, nobody has to run your software no matter how loud yell.

 

[Norway]

Although the responsible and nerd inclined president @solex voted "no" for BUIP 101, I think the naughty boy inside him likes the proposal.

 

[solex]

@imaginary_username
Indeed. The miners are not watching gifs, they are too busy managing the 1000 things that can go wrong in a big business where they are fighting tooth and nail with competitors. It's a no-brainer choosing between software which works out of the box, or software which needs tweaking to get running.
Sorry @Norway, I like the 4-byte to 8-byte change, but not the default removal, as I have mentioned a lot lately!

 

[Norway]

EB=10TB works fine out of the box. Monster block attacks are overrated, and the blocksize is a huge mental problem.

 

[freetrader]

If BUIP 101 gets a majority vote, I will submit this to SV, ABC, XT and other implementations. But I need help, because I don't know how Github works.

Linked you to some help in the BUIP101 thread:
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip101-set-the-default-value-of-max-blocksize-cap-hard-limit-to-10-terabyte.22424/page-3#post-81860

Still want to know why you're making this conditional on BUIP101 getting majority. Clearly it's got near 50% support.
Wouldn't you want some other BCH implementation to do so either way, regardless of the vote?

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
I'm sorry, but I don't think you see the big picture here.

 

[freetrader]

It's interesting how you refuse to answer that question.

 

[Norway]

BUIP 101 failed with 16 against 17 votes. @freetrader, you may pop the champangne.

I need a break.

 

[freetrader]

Despite what you may think, @Norway, I don't have reason here to pop any champagne.

Take some time to collect yourself, it's not the end of the world for your vision.
SV might be keen to implement your proposal, and if you want help asking them on their Github, I'll be here to help you.