Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

New The new BCH elite and gate keepers in action.

It sounds like we are back in the scaling debate.
Just exchange 1MB with 32MB.

Hm. I was starting to believe, that we'll see an end to the scaling debate on BCH.

This is a gruesome collection of tweets.

A good reason to keep some BSV.

 

[cypherdoc]

I think I need to extend the meme just a bit;

"dev's gotta dev... to get paid".

 

[freetrader]

I would be more confident if there were a plan or roadmap but simply saying "this is what it is because..." seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Even a dynamic block size limit would be preferable.

@imaginary_username and others have put forward dynamic proposals, and these will be evaluated in simulations. That is what is underway at the moment.
[doublepost=1557686191][/doublepost]

32mb is the new 1mb

"mining full blocks on mainnet to prove you can scale" is the new adoption

 

[cypherdoc]

@freetrader: "do not spam main net until we let you know".

 

[sken]

that's because all the pro BCH supporters have run away and hid. you, otoh, are welcome to stay and argue your 10 block rolling checkpoints and why or why not BCH should raise its blocksize.

you really didnt answer the question. BU has no business with BSV anymore. people like @Norway just want to sabotage any effort by BU to work on the BCH chain and sow division. theres also a lot of SV supporters that are anti BCH. whats the point really? give a straight answer

 

[torusJKL]

BU has no business with BSV anymore.

Only because BU doesn't have a BSV compatible client anymore doesn't mean that it can't be involved in BSV.

 

[Zarathustra]

Amazingly BU's chief developer did not vote on the BSV issue. My guesstimation: He's not convinced that Craig Wright is not (main) part of the team Satoshi.
[doublepost=1557690597][/doublepost]

you really didnt answer the question. BU has no business with BSV anymore.

You are a late adopter. You don't understand BU. BU is not the client.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-1451#post-93217

 

[cypherdoc]

whats the point really?

you really don't get it? everytime the existing group steals the ticker through collusion and misinformation, it degrades network effect, which I despise. yes, I'd rather see all other implementations go to zero with BSV to $millions to preserve a single monetary order.

I'll ask you the same thing. there's now a clear split, so why are you here?

 

[Norway]

@imaginary_username and others have put forward dynamic proposals, and these will be evaluated in simulations. That is what is underway at the moment.

A dynamic max blocksize means the blocks can grow to the max size miners can handle. This is the same as not having a max blocksize.

Some devs are too "smart" to understand this.

EDIT:
Correction. Depending on the formula, it's possible to give veto to laggard minority miners or have a dev hardcap that grow slower than demand and tech. But these schemes only serve to hold bitcoin back and remove competition between miners regarding capacity.

 

[Richy_T]

Amazingly BU's chief developer did not vote on the BSV issue. My guesstimation: He's not convinced that Craig Wright is not (main) part of the team Satoshi.

Jaw-dropping logic.
[doublepost=1557697078][/doublepost]The way things are shaking out these days, I'm beginning to think that Jorge Stolfi is Satoshi.
[doublepost=1557697233][/doublepost]

A dynamic max blocksize means the blocks can grow to the max size miners can handle. This is the same as not having a max blocksize.

Bingo. It does protect somewhat from sudden uncharacteristically huge floods to the network. I'm not too worried about those but can see that some would be and am content to throw them a bone.

 

[Norway]

@Richy_T
I'd be surprised if @imaginary_username's dynamic blocksize proposal is not restricted by

A) Laggard minority miners
or
B) Max growth pace set by devs
[doublepost=1557701330,1557700692][/doublepost]I predict @imaginary_username's dynamic blocksize proposal will be socialistic and keep "the Fidelity problem" alive.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Now .. To say something good about bch .. I love buying something with it. The new bitpay checkout is amazing. Bitpay accepts the payment in the same moment when I push 'send' , not even a blink between ...i can't believe people pay a double extra fee to get the inferior experience of using btc

 

[Richy_T]

A) Laggard minority miners
or
B) Max growth pace set by devs

Probably. To be clear, any dynamic block size restriction should only have an effect on bursty traffic and if larger block sizes are sustained, the dynamic block size limit should move out of the way (and likewise, should revert should the block sizes fall).

Miners should feel free to reject blocks, according to what they believe would be the most profitable. That's about all the incentive you need there. Though I think we should distinguish, perhaps, between the block assembly part of mining and the hashing part.

 

[Norway]

@Richy_T
Payment systems can be bursty by nature. VISA has 1700 tx/s on average, but spikes a lot higher than that (black friday etc). The capacity should be a lot higher than the average.

Craig Wright has talked about this. Will @imaginary_username take this advice from Craig?

 

[rocks]

@imaginary_username and others have put forward dynamic proposals, and these will be evaluated in simulations. That is what is underway at the moment.

Evaluated by who, how and with what defined criteria? Or is the evaluation undefined and just based on whatever the "experts" say, in which case who are the experts and what are their motives? I consider myself to be an expert, is my evaluation going to be used to measure the outcome?

This is core logic all over again and I want none of it. Unbounded protocol with emergent limits only or I'm not participating.

 

[Richy_T]

Payment systems can be bursty by nature. VISA has 1700 tx/s on average, but spikes a lot higher than that (black friday etc). The capacity should be a lot higher than the average.

Yes. I quite agree. Not slow to move either. More like a decoupling capacitor.

 

[cypherdoc]

who defines how fast it should respond? or how fast it should retract? even dynamic limits suffer from bias.

 

[Zarathustra]

Jaw-dropping logic.

Yes, Zarathustra's razor. Since @Zangelbert Bingledack - one of the deepest DeepMinds in the Bitcoin environment - researched the case deeper than anybody else here, you would have to be ignorant not to give it a significant probability.

 

[Zarathustra]

Anarcho Capitalism is Anarcho Idiotism

 

[Manfred]

Been swapping coins in recent times as exchange rates are good. Some coins have not even arrived in BSV wallet and no have to start organizing again as the ability to sweep private keys will be discontinued. Not a question if but how soon, handcash leading the way. As it stands paper wallets are the best choice to store SV coins (as i see it). Biometric hardware wallets is the end of privacy on the blockchain.
A monster of unimaginably magnitude is on the way.