Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[VeritasSapere]

I think that Bitcoin will be able to scale to Visa scale levels over the long term, just by increasing the blocksize. It depends on the rate of technological progress. It might be twenty years or a hundred years but we will get their eventually. You could even say that Bitcoin is ahead of its time in terms of its technological demands.

It reminds me a bit of some good computer games I like to play, that only run to its full potential ten years after it has been released, so that view distance, unit caps and all that good stuff can get maxed out and modded.

It is important that we do scale Bitcoin directly as much as the technology will allow at the time by increasing the blocksize. If we do not do this Bitcoin will not be able to compete with alternative cryptocurrencies. My hope is that technological growth will be faster then adoption, especially considering that people will be free to use off chain solutions which will also take pressure off the main chain. If adoption does outstrip technological growth then people will simply move more traffic to off chain solutions and alternative cryptocurrencies. This is different to arbitrarily restricting the transaction volume now by not increasing the blocksize, that is a form of economic planning which is what Core calls a "fee market". There should be a free market for blockspace instead which would best reflect the technological limitations at any one time.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1384168.msg14086791#msg14086791

 

[cypherdoc]

bought another crapload of DZZ @5.95.

you can't say i don't believe.

 

[solex]

Announcement of BU's first funded project: BUIP014 for testing BU nodes within China.
We have about 1.1 BTC pledged which will make a good start.

Any suggestions, further considerations and technical points are welcomed.

 

[cypherdoc]

What we are currently experiencing is the attempt to convert the Bitcoin network into a pure settlement layer for the sake of layer-2-solutions, which will necessarily lead to a huge disruption in the current Bitcoin ecosystem. Most of the current startups that created this existing ecosystem build their products, marketing and business plans around Bitcoin as the global P2P payment system as it is described by Satoshi Nakamoto in the white paper.

http://www.coinfox.info/news/persons/4928-dominik-weil-bitcoin-network-currently-works-on-its-capacity-limit

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[Peter R]

@Peter R


isn't this explanation quite similar to your subchains concept?

Similar, but not identical. Subchains as described here are strictly "append only," whereas in the Reddit-linked paper, weak blocks can both add or subtract transactions (but the authors don't specify how this is done). I prefer append-only subchains because they increase the security of 0-conf transactions.

 

[cypherdoc]

People are losing patience with @Jihan

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48uixq/best_tweets_of_jihan_wu_antpool/
[doublepost=1457066540][/doublepost]F2pool Classic hash rising:

https://www.f2pool.com/

 

[Peter R]

Looks like something went wrong when testing segwit and testnet forked:

 

[johnyj]

SegWit is stupid because for each 1MB real tx data, you would need to prepare 4x bandwidth for anti-spam due to discount on witness data, the spammer can fill the block with much more multi-sig data than normal traffic data

 

[largerblocks]

All, there has been some discussion here on the potential need for a user led full fork if miners refuse to activate Classic and increase the block size. I have started a full fork project to prepare for this possibility and anyone who is interested is welcome to help.

My thinking is if an alt coin is going to win because Bitcoin has been artificially capped, then it is best if that alt coin preserves as much of Bitcoin's transaction history and ownership as possible. This also incentivizes the large Bitcoin user base of early adopters and owners, since they automatically have an ownership stake in the forked branch.

My goal here is not to decide what Bitcoin should be, but to start a user lead rebellion against what is happening. I hope this effort kick starts many different projects that provide users many different options, and through that choice the free market can choose what is the best path, not a corrupt board of directors. If a different project creates a fork that gains more traction but is closer to Satoshi's white paper than today's Bitcoin, that is a great outcome.

The discussion thread is here, which describes the plan, where the github project is, etc.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/announcement-bitcoin-project-to-full-fork-to-flexible-blocksizes.933/#post-13715

The coding effort is not too involved I believe, only a few changes are needed and they are relatively straight forward to implement. A couple months should be enough. The code is directly forked from Classic 0.11.2 and will be easy to diff from that version.

I originally announced this on /r/btc, but the post was censored within 5 minutes. Then when I posted a question asking how to find out why my post was censored, that post was censored as well. So apparently /r/btc has gone full North Korea too. Given the history of the censorship from BCT and /r/bitcoin this tells me the project is pushing the right buttons....

 

[dlareg]

Seg-wit fork on testnet, wouldn't you say? Seg-wit code merge into 0.12 showing currently 70 changed files, +1,924 and -386 lines of code. These are all src changes, not qa.

For the classic 2 MB hard fork 11 changed files, +350 and -22 lines of code.

Adam Back clearing the misconceptions 2 months ago:

Questioner: People are concerned about the network impact of full blocks causing fee pressure and slow transactions at this point in the system's life cycle.

Adam: Developer consensus is that segregated-witness 2MB soft-fork is the best next step for a combination of fastest to available scale, and forward-progress on scalability. The estimation is that soft-forks can deploy faster and more safely and are easier to reach consensus on. In no way does anyone want to impact nor create adoption constraints. The 2MB comes from miners measurements of their current network capabilities with current protocol. IBLT & weak-blocks improve the protocol to get more scale out of existing networks. And hopefully networks will also improve and companies and individuals will put effort into improving them.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm certainly not feeling the "fast and safe" of which Adam speaks. Reading through three months of Adam's Reddit posts and the guy literally speaks gibberish 24x7. Above is the most coherent thought I could find and that is not saying much!

 

[YarkoL]

http://gavinandresen.ninja/One-Dollar-Lulz

So totally on the point. I'm gradually becoming the guy's number one fan.

Also this great comment on the (m)other subreddit

 

[johnyj]

All, there has been some discussion here on the potential need for a user led full fork if miners refuse to activate Classic and increase the block size. I have started a full fork project to prepare for this possibility and anyone who is interested is welcome to help.

I had a similar post on reddit/r/btc
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/48f72b/we_need_a_small_hard_fork_to_remove_peoples_fear/

The thinking behind this is: In case there is a systematic failure after several months of non-bitcoin implementation like segwit went online, there is at least one bitcoin implementation using satoshi architecture

But later I realized that once segwit softfork is activated, every blocks mined by classic and bu miners will be orphaned, so miners have all moved to segwit network, but there will be many nodes still run classic/bu. So if segwit failed and hash rate fall back to classic/bu, they will become as good as before, just all the blocks when segwit was running contains only "everyone can spend" type of transaction, free for grab???

You can also run an incompatible version of satoshi client as soon as segwit softfork went online, in that case you will not have those "any one can spend" transactions after fall back from failed segwit implementation

No, we need to stop segwit softfork, it is an extinction level event, need at least one year evaluation

 

[dwaltrip]

Well written post about how big changes are often sudden, and applies the thinking to bitcoin. Not a very settling late night read however..

http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=764

Although I wonder if any of the altcoins could actually bear the weight of becoming the leading coin, especially after everything that has been built up through bitcoin over thr years. Seems somewhat doubtful, and that the entire space could simply be set back 3-4 years..

 

[Peter R]

@johnyj

If the segwit softfork is activated, Unlimited and Classic nodes will not fork with respect to Core (at least they shouldn't but it appears some might ). That's why it's described as a soft-fork--nodes the don't support it still get carried along.

The only way we'll get an actual blockchain fork is if a >1MB block gets included into the longest chain and Core nodes still refuse to increase their block size limits.

 

[Inca]

Never thought I would see this. Hypocrisy is high.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg14089023#msg14089023

As altcoin fortunes are made and bitcoin stagnates with rising network disruption it will be interesting to see 'die hard 1mb forever!' useful idiots begin to implicitly understand basic economics, see how the market always finds a solution and rapidly see the light.

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Good Morning!

Looks like something went wrong when testing segwit and testnet forked:
...

Can't reject some good old Schadenfreude combined with an apocalyptic lust for seeing core's version of bitcoin terribly fail.

SegWit is stupid because for each 1MB real tx data, you would need to prepare 4x bandwidth for anti-spam due to discount on witness data, the spammer can fill the block with much more multi-sig data than normal traffic data

Yes. Completeley. This is one of the reasons why SegWit is not "secure scaling" but "insecure anti-scaling". See this in ligt of maaku7's endless repeating rejection of 2 MB blocks because of SegWit

Re 5: What if the bitcoin protocol simply cannot safely handle an increase, in addition to what segwit would provide? It is not the case that "everyone agrees" that 2MB max block size + segwit would be safe. Numbers presented (by Classic devs, no less!) at Scaling Bitcoin HK showed this would definitively not be safe.

SegWit opens an attack vector of 4 MB while only providing blockspace of 1.7 MB. This doubles the risk of every future increase of the blocksize. SegWit is not a scaling-solution but an attack on future onchain scaling.

So if segwit failed and hash rate fall back to classic/bu, they will become as good as before, just all the blocks when segwit was running contains only "everyone can spend" type of transaction, free for grab???

Worse. Every exchange and every wallet using SegWit makes essentially a huge decision against every competing client that doesn't use SegWit. The risk is huge. If an exchange / a wallet-server (e. G. electrum, greenaddress etc.) uses SegWit and a bit later we see a fork for classic they risk to loose EVERY customer fund.

 

[albin]

Segwit is the most dangerous soft fork imaginable, because it's opt-in in name only. It's not like p2sh, where the community had a long time to get up to speed implementing the transactions correctly, and the thing could be properly-understood before putting any serious value on the line. Segwit is being rushed into production in such a way that the only point behind doing it is to push everyone into these tx's as soon as possible. There's no going back once the softfork activates and a preponderance of software and businesses support the segwit tx's. If there's any fatal problem such that this implementation has to be reverted at some point (2013 accidental hardfork style), then the security guarantees of Bitcoin are irreparably destroyed.

 

[sgbett]

Satoshi is the ideal dictator - he is never around, only his legendary memory

Anyone else thinking those 1m+ coins s/he has are a kill switch ...
[doublepost=1457090287][/doublepost]

Oops!

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7633

Always nasty when your bug is aggravated by self-inflicted blocksize limits.

and suddenly a chunk of those low fee 'spam' transactions are unquestionably not 'spam'...

 

[Matthew Light]

My thinking is if an alt coin is going to win because Bitcoin has been artificially capped, then it is best if that alt coin preserves as much of Bitcoin's transaction history and ownership as possible.

My thinking is that there are a lot of really undeserving and negative people with huge Bitcoin balances. I think the world is probably a lot better off if those people lose their disproportionate economic power.

People who are pragmatic about cryptocurrency and not religious about the first version of it will be much more likely to see the handwriting on the wall a lot earlier.