Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
I think I need to extend the meme just a bit;

"dev's gotta dev... to get paid".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter R and Norway

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginary_username

sken

New Member
Nov 22, 2017
24
20
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
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
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?
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@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.
 
Last edited:

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bsdtar and Norway

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
@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

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

Manfred

Member
Feb 1, 2019
42
56
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.