Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
luke-jr on classic slask (#dev channel):

SegWit is 2-4, not 1.6

we probably have 4-5 years before we reach 1 MB in volume anyway

sorry but I can't assume good faith anymore.

the first point is in plain contradiction with Core Capacity increase FAQ:

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#segwit-size

According to some calculations performed by Anthony Towns, a block filled with standard single-signature P2PKH transactions would be about 1.6MB and a block filled with 2-of-2 multisignature transactions would be about 2.0MB.
 
Last edited:

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
The greatest singer/songwriter ever felt it coming long ago.

Democracy is coming to us this day.

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.

(...)

It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to us this day.

 
  • Like
Reactions: YarkoL

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Mighty tempted to take out a nice leveraged long position on bitfinex..

Lets see how the price develops today.
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532

hmm. on the one hand, can't get everyone on board for anything beyond a direct 2mb bump. Then you get this, which makes me wonder if the 2-4 appeases, or what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: YarkoL and majamalu

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
And, (as noted on /r/bitcon) here we have Charley Cooper, Managing Director of R3, pre-announcing Mike Hearn's "break-up" with Bitcoin at a Brookings' "Beyond Bitcoin" conf (full of regulators, policy people, financial folks, etc) yesterday:
Ironically enough, Barry Silbert spoke immediately before this guy.
In a way we can see these guys as allies-enemies rather than straight out enemies. They are publicising blockchain etc - thus indirectly publicising bitcoin - they giving it credibility when they say this technology is real, here to stay, etc. So I think over all they are a good thing for bitcoin, but of course also a danger.

Bitcoin is the open global permissionless ledger. These guys are bitranets. That is why it is extremely important that the open ledger scales because if it does not these guys - and not LN nonsense - win by default.

Ironically, or maybe not, blockstream is much closer to these guys than to bitcoin. LN is just a sideshow - blockstream's actual/main business is in developing and providing bitranets (although they call them sidechains) - that is private blockchains for companies or banks or whatever.

Unfortunately, blockstream can't even be allies-enemies because bitcoin can't compete with them because they control/wish-to-control bitcoin and of course the interests of bitranets and the open ledger are often in direct competition thus harming one means the other wins by default.

This battle therefore isn't really about the blocksize, but about a vision of the world in 10-20 years. Do we want a world with an open blockchain accessible to all, like the internet, or do we want private walled gardens where you have to pay a fee to play and provide whatever kyc etc like the intranet.

Ideally we want, and probably will have, both just as during the early days of the internet. Companies will, probably rightly to begin with, try and keep control by using bitranets, but then they will see that the open net is far more dynamic, far more secure, far more innovative, faster moving, with a lot more users and most importantly far cheaper than running their own - so bitranets would cease to be offered to the consumers, but they probably would still find small application within companies just as intranets continue to be in use.

Once the size is lifted, therefore, the real, greater and much more exciting battle of ideas will be between the open bitcoin and the for profit companies trying to sell their bitranets.


In regards to BTCC's comments, I am worried that miners are playing games. They signed 8mb in blood so to speak, now they whining about 2-4 mb. Next they'll want us to compromise to 500kb. Moreover, I do not see why he thinks he requires permission from core or why he keeps begging them when core no longer exists. There is no core without the two most seniour developers Gavin and Jeff - there is a team with a vision fully opposed to the aim of keeping bitcoin open to all and more interested in turning it into a sort of LN walled garden by bringing in middle men who have gateways and checking powers etc. and sell bitranets.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995

hmm. on the one hand, can't get everyone on board for anything beyond a direct 2mb bump. Then you get this, which makes me wonder if the 2-4 appeases, or what?
no, Samson is just being obstructive. the Classic Team is taking the right approach for now to KISS and just get the ball moved over the hard fork and change out core dev line. THIS is what will get us real change. the other fancy stuff can come later. obfuscating this objective with too much is counterproductive right now.

we all need to dig up the plenty of anti-mining posts made by core devs in the past over the years. Samson and BTCC don't realize that core dev despises them.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
[doublepost=1452953145][/doublepost]
F2Pool - " We do not believe [in] the concept of [a] fee market"

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700411.msg13571787#msg13571787
"Policy change announcement: We support the hard fork effort to increase the max block size to 2MB."
[doublepost=1452954010,1452953099][/doublepost]
In a way we can see these guys as allies-enemies rather than straight out enemies. They are publicising blockchain etc - thus indirectly publicising bitcoin - they giving it credibility when they say this technology is real, here to stay, etc. So I think over all they are a good thing for bitcoin, but of course also a danger.

Bitcoin is the open global permissionless ledger. These guys are bitranets. That is why it is extremely important that the open ledger scales because if it does not these guys - and not LN nonsense - win by default.

Ironically, or maybe not, blockstream is much closer to these guys than to bitcoin. LN is just a sideshow - blockstream's actual/main business is in developing and providing bitranets (although they call them sidechains) - that is private blockchains for companies or banks or whatever.

Unfortunately, blockstream can't even be allies-enemies because bitcoin can't compete with them because they control/wish-to-control bitcoin and of course the interests of bitranets and the open ledger are often in direct competition thus harming one means the other wins by default.

This battle therefore isn't really about the blocksize, but about a vision of the world in 10-20 years. Do we want a world with an open blockchain accessible to all, like the internet, or do we want private walled gardens where you have to pay a fee to play and provide whatever kyc etc like the intranet.

Ideally we want, and probably will have, both just as during the early days of the internet. Companies will, probably rightly to begin with, try and keep control by using bitranets, but then they will see that the open net is far more dynamic, far more secure, far more innovative, faster moving, with a lot more users and most importantly far cheaper than running their own - so bitranets would cease to be offered to the consumers, but they probably would still find small application within companies just as intranets continue to be in use.

Once the size is lifted, therefore, the real, greater and much more exciting battle of ideas will be between the open bitcoin and the for profit companies trying to sell their bitranets.


In regards to BTCC's comments, I am worried that miners are playing games. They signed 8mb in blood so to speak, now they whining about 2-4 mb. Next they'll want us to compromise to 500kb. Moreover, I do not see why he thinks he requires permission from core or why he keeps begging them when core no longer exists. There is no core without the two most seniour developers Gavin and Jeff - there is a team with a vision fully opposed to the aim of keeping bitcoin open to all and more interested in turning it into a sort of LN walled garden by bringing in middle men who have gateways and checking powers etc. and sell bitranets.
@Aquent

just to nitpick here. when you start throwing in custom new terms like "bitranet", it just confuses your message. you're killing it overall on reddit, here, and elsewhere, but i'd suggest avoiding these new concepts. it's like Trace Mayer constantly coming up with his new shoe-horned concepts like "who's now hiring Bitcoin?" among others. what does that even mean? you're doing great though. keep it up.
 

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
I think bitranet - bitcoin intranet - perfectly describes what R3 and Blockstream are doing. It probably needs some elaboration first - such as maybe saying bitranet (bitcoin intranet) to begin with but otherwise I think it is self descriptive. Better than private chains - far too long and private chains dont communicate clearly their difference with the open chain as bitranet does.

Dunno though - maybe I'll fail to coin the term :p but yeah fair comment reminding me I need to elaborate on the meaning of the term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bitsko

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
brg444 has opened the notorious #rekt thread again, only for a few minutes though, so that he and some of his cronies could make some comments, while quickly shutting it down again so that people like myself can not get a word in. A rather disgusting tactic if you ask me.
 

79b79aa8

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2015
1,031
3,440
I think bitranet - bitcoin intranet - perfectly describes what R3 and Blockstream are doing.
@Aquent

But presumably the blockchain R3 is building does not store value in BTC, but in USD. So it is an intranet, but not a bitcoin one.

Blockstream does want to use bitcoin -- so long as they get to control how it works, in order to simplify their own engineering and revenue-generating needs. Sorry, not going to happen.
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
yes.

p2p is where the decentralization is at.

it's also where @Peter R's equilibrium fee mkt exists and can function properly.
 

Members online

No members online now.