Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
@AdrianX In regards to Ethereum encountering the same centralized governance control problem, that might not necessarily be the case. If Ethereum successfully pulls of the hard fork into PoS, then its governance model would be very different compared to the governance model that Bitcoin has today. Instead of miners voting it would be stakeholders voting directly within the Ethereum protocol. I am not saying that this is better, it is just very different which means that it could also have a different outcome. Furthermore the development team of Ethereum seems to already be committed to on chain scaling with the founders still being present, again I am not saying this is better, but it is different.

As possible solutions to the governance problems that Bitcoin is going through I actually like self funding blockchains combined with collateralized and incentivized voting full nodes like Dash and Bitshares the most, which have well defined voting mechanisms. That is part of the problem in Bitcoin now, people are disagreeing over what the governance mechanism of Bitcoin even is. If we could agree on that then we could just have a vote and be done with it without any major controversy. I would like to see the governance model of Bitcoin prove itself viable, being the most simplistic, it is also the most elegant.
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Yes, this is my favourite theory. And the quicker it happens, the better.
You run an above average risk of the main stream media pushing ETH over bitcoin when it happens and the new narrative "Bitcoin can't scale" will be on the lips of everyone fleeing fiat, it will be pushed by every naysayer who's ever predicted bitcoin's failure.

That's not the outcome I'm aiming for. Unlike @jonny1000 I don't want to see the value of bitcoin go to zero before we hard fork to increase the block size with less than 95% unilateral support.

The sooner @jonny1000 realise that showing support for bigger blocks isn't an attack or counter productive, the sooner we'll get to that 95% support you want. But you have to start unequivocally supporting the need for bigger blocks - anything less is not support. Discouraging support, saying (and I paraphrase) "if you stop supporting bigger blocks well get 95% support for bigger blocks sooner",

@jonny1000 approach is counter intuitive and ignorant. This is the real world not an authoritarian parent saying to a 2 year old, you can have the cooky just stop asking for it. - This debate has been going on since 2013 the 2MB compromise is almost not even a compromise let alone an acceptable solution. It kicks the can down the road for another 6 months at best and we have to stop asking for it for another year before we get it.

good luck with that.
edited - sorry @Norway most of the post was directed at Jonny1000 - I misread who I was replying too.
[doublepost=1466017583,1466016897][/doublepost]
I would even argue that due to subjective perception of relative value (a la hedonic treadmill - type theories), that significant sideways price action when miners have the expectation of price appreciation can serve the same function psychologically as a price collapse.
I'm tempted to hit the sell button every time I even contemplate this idea I'm predicting a sharp market correction about now (I'm all sold up so it's not me)
 
Last edited:

Norway

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2015
2,424
6,410
@AdrianX
I don't want bitcoin to go to zero. I have never said that, and I don't think it's possible in the near future.

I don't want a crash at all. But I think it's maybe the only way to pry the definition power out of Core/Blockstream's cold, dead hands.

I believe a hard fork to BU/Classic/XT will kick off the moon trip we all want.

I think I'm less scared of Ethereum than you, but that's pretty much the difference between us.

EDIT: Lol, I saw your edit now :)
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Sorry, I meant successful HF, I.e. one regarded as Bitcoin
Still ignorant to the present moment. you're obsessed with the process, looking forward from this point and draw the conclusion it looks like inadequate support, but looking back after the fact it will always look like 100% support and in hindsight you'll be able to calculate where the 95% support was but not before.

That is the nature of the Hard Fork. It's probably between Gladwells Tipping Point, and your preferred 95%.

It's in the present that support is relevant. That's how the limit was introduced and that's how it will be moved. No attack just the wisdom of the collective network (the crowd).
 
Last edited:

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
We are now sitting at 40k unconfirmed transactions in the mempool, this is the most congested the network has been for a long time. My transactions have all still not been confirmed, and since I do need to send more Bitcoin to this exchange I did a third transaction. This time not using the recommended maximum fee but using a custom fee of over fifty cents. This is anything but user friendly, this type of thing would most likely frustrate most people and turn them away from BTC.

https://blockchain.info/en/unconfirmed-transactions
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Those of us who want bigger blocks should just take steps, through our own actions, that lead to the outcome we want. There is no need to wring our hands, or lament Core’s intransigence. Node operators can choose to stop enforcing the block limit today by running Bitcoin Unlimited. Exchanges can announce that they will follow a hard fork to bigger blocks, and could even offer fork arbitrage. Miners can signal support for bigger blocks in the blocks they mine.

The one (and only) thing we have control over is our own actions. So we may as well take actions that lead towards the outcomes we want.
Thanks, Better articulated than I've been able to put it, but yes this is the way, and looking at it like this, why would anyone oppose the process it's not threatening?
 

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
Sorry, I meant successful HF, I.e. one regarded as Bitcoin
What is coming is crypto domination of money.

What we want is bitcoin to be that crypto, not only because we have an interest in its ledger, but because that way there is continuity for everyone.

We need to develop/evolve a winning bitcoin. For us hodlers it doesn't matter which version wins: any successful HF of bitcoin is bitcoin, because they all operate on that same ledger: that is what makes them bitcoin rather than ethereum or monero. No one wants to keep changing ledgers.

Let bitcoin HF away freely and let the strongest most market-fit version triumph over all the rest in a Darwinian survival of the fittest to survive.

Unlock the door @jonny1000. Leave the nutters behind. Stop trying to force uniformity and trying to control according to your idea of purity. Welcome a free-for-all. Let the best version emerge and win, because then we all win. The market will converge on a winner.
looking back after the fact it will always look like 100% support and in hindsight you'll be able to calculate where the 95% support was but not before.
It's not rocket science. Not even computer science.

edit: spellings
 
Last edited:

solex

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 22, 2015
1,558
4,693
Luke Dialup Junior is happy to reinvent history.
There were about 20 polls on Bitcointalk.org and Reddit in the 2.5 year period February 2013 to about August 2015 when the censorship started in earnest. All of them, although worded differently, showed >75% support for increasing the block limit and on-chain scaling. The poll here is major, and look at the geographical spread of votes


Poll - Should the Bitcoin block size limit be raised within the next two years?
619 Votes in 377 days
Created 4th June 2015 - 11:13 PM





There was consensus for a hard-fork, an overwhelming majority of many well-informed Bitcoiners who knew the correct direction to take. It could have been a smooth process executed over 2 years keeping everyone happy except perhaps Todd and Popescu.
This consensus has been massively subverted by thermos and Maxwell, with a new cohort of r/bitcoin readers who believe that they are following perceived wisdom by adhering to small-blockerism.

Now the throughput delays in BTC txns are ordinary users being deemed "spam". New people to Bitcoin are getting a UX that sucks hard.

It's a very sad situation.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
They have censored the posts from the front page.


And core shill Oleg suggesting that /r/bitcoin (and all of social media) are under attack. Sure we love destroying our own investment during the first rally in years.

There is only so long they can keep this going in the face of reality. So glad I have an ETH hedge 'just in case' but also annoyed I even need it.
 

rebuilder

Member
Mar 14, 2016
34
22
Those of us who want bigger blocks should just take steps, through our own actions, that lead to the outcome we want.
Good idea. Problems:
-Anyone can run a node. It makes little difference how many nodes support what protocol choices.
-There's a big barrier to running an exchange, and an exchange has no direct say in the protocol.
-Only miners matter.

So far, the threat from mining centralization has mostly been seen as a matter of someone gaining a majority of hashrate and using that position for economic gain. Now, it's starting to seem to me, the bigger issue is that you can blind miners to their own interests, and the more centralized mining is, the fewer people you have to convince.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
You know what? I agree with you. But not via consensus through "signaling". But instead through consensus of 51%of miners choosing an alternate chain that increases blocksize.
It is not formal rules and authority, but a principal backed by Bitcoin's design, "a HF cannot occur without strong consensus across the entire community." That is not a rule but a principal and hopefully a fact.

Remember, a HF is only a tiny narrow subset of the potential changes anyway, therefore the ability to adapt remains strong and Bitcoin is very flexible.
[doublepost=1466035677][/doublepost]Boom