Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

@jbreher : get the 'permalink' of the comment you want, and hope that its owner doesn't delete it

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Mengerian I think the altcoin space has an inherent pump-and-dump dynamic that is widely understood even by the altcoin investors. Thus through the natural selection process, we can expect the top altcoins at any given time to include some that optimize for greatest pumpability (and thus dumpability), as you mentioned Dash may. There is the specter of a massive pump somehow managing to catapult a coin into having a commercial network effect, but until I see dark market transactions or other clearly legit (heh) commerce happening in any significant volume I'll be skeptical.

 

[adamstgbit]

OT but i think you guys might get a lol

 

[Norway]

Great to see XT kick some ass for the EC-team!

I now consider XT as the conservative grandpa in the EC ecosystem. And I mean that in a good way. Max 5% increase per difficulty adjustment seems a bit too conservative to me, but some miners might love this.

A miner switching to XT is better than a miner switching to SegWit.

Trying to wrap my head around how XT, Classic and BU work together under different scenarios. But I think the 5% increase per diff adjust is too little in the short term future.

 

[xhiggy]

@Norway

The slow ramp up could be a blessing. People watching the slow steady increase with nothing bad happening would give confidence to the idea of a larger block size itself. Anything that would get people to agree on a permanent increase schedule would be a huge win if it can be done quickly. If it will take a while to gain acceptance, then 5% may be too little.

 

[albin]

Trying to wrap my head around how XT, Classic and BU work together under different scenarios. But I think the 5% increase per diff adjust is too little in the short term future.

I think strict BIP 100 as actual consensus code runs the risk of causing EB/AD-style BU miners to hard fork off, but as a coordination strategy implemented underneath BU mechanics I think it would work fine. The underlying logic of BIP100 operation could even be implemented as a script changing your EB through the CLI at every block height I imagine?

 

[adamstgbit]

Great to see XT kick some ass for the EC-team!

I now consider XT as the conservative grandpa in the EC ecosystem. And I mean that in a good way. Max 5% increase per difficulty adjustment seems a bit too conservative to me, but some miners might love this.

A miner switching to XT is better than a miner switching to SegWit.

Trying to wrap my head around how XT, Classic and BU work together under different scenarios. But I think the 5% increase per diff adjust is too little in the short term future.

I'm really liking this.

5% every 2 weeks will mean a doubling of the block size will take a little over 6months.
this seems totally fine to me.
5% more space in a block will make the difference between having a blocklog thats always getting bigger, and a backlog that they manage to clear up totally every so often.

my favorite part of this is that, BU can remain "unlimited" but with these XT nodes on the network, other BU miners are kind-of honor bound to not incress the blocksize TOO fast.

I'm Loving the idea of the network runing BU XT CLASSIC all in harmony

 

[Norway]

@adamstgbit XT will take almost two years to get to 8MB. If bitcoin goes Facebook, it's way to slow. And the network can handle a lot of growth fine.
[doublepost=1489300098][/doublepost]I don't give a shit about the home nodes with smallest capacity. Mining nodes are the important nodes. And they are parts of huge pools. Bitcoin miners are the most powerful computer network on the planet today. And all that power is channelled through 10-20 pools.

And the next mobile network will provide 450 megabit connections for regular users.

"50MB every 10 minutes is waaaay too much"-attitude is just a symptome of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[adamstgbit]

@Norway

if we "limit up" indefinitely the blocksize will grow exponentially, so if bitcoin goes facebook, blocksize might lag behind a few years but will eventually catch up. in 5 years we'd be at 657MB

I think after 16MB or 160MB (somewhere around there, lol) blocksize probably won't be able to grow faster than 10-30% a year because we'll hit a technological limit and if passed decentralization might really be effected.

not saying 160MB is the absolute limit, but given today's technology it might be... the hope is that the tech will improve fast enough, but we can also do things like LN as a crutch untill tech improves.

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit XT will take almost I don't give a shit about the home nodes with smallest capacity. Mining nodes are the important nodes. And they are parts of huge pools. Bitcoin miners are the most powerful computer network on the planet today. And all that power is channelled through 10-20 pools.

And the next mobile network will provide 450 megabit connections for regular users.

"50MB every 10 minutes is waaaay too much"-attitude is just a symptome of Stockholm syndrome.

i'm all for not caring about simpleton users being able to run nodes easily.

but we have to draw somewhere, and i'd say we should aim to never exceed the capabilities of a 2000$ computer with slightly above avg internet connection.

if running a node costs 1000's of dollars a year we've gone to far.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Mining nodes are the important nodes.

Nah, that's not quite true imho.
But I don't see any problem with much larger blocks today. For god's sake, people still run Raspberry Pi nodes. That's far from what's technologically possible today and there are tons of used servers on ebay for sale that could support paypal-scale Bitcoin today. (Ok that's just a guess, but I'm pretty sure a good one )

"50MB every 10 minutes is waaaay too much"-attitude is just a symptome of Stockholm syndrome.

Yep. Imho 16 MB will give us enough breathing room for 2017 and possible 2018.
BIP 101 was the right idea.


At the moment it isn't so much about the size of the blocks as it is about having any size larger than 1 MB to show the world, that Bitcoin can grow and that hardforks are possible and that the system hasn't been overtaken by AXA (yet).

but we can also do things like LN as a crutch untill tech improves.

LN does not exist and I doubt it ever will. Micropayment channels will exist with 1 GB blocks as well I guess. There is no reason to propagate every second of video stream costing subcents to the blockchain. Also I see a possible future (but more in 20 years or something like that), where every transaction in the world is done on the blockchain, including extremely small ones.

"LN" is a trojan horse to replace Bitcoin.

if running a node costs 1000's of dollars a year we've gone to far.

We are still very far away from these costs . And if a bitcoin is worth 100k's$, would you care if a node costed 1000's of dollars per year?

 

[freetrader]

i'm all for not caring about simpleton users being able to run nodes easily.

but we have to draw somewhere, and i'd say we should aim to never exceed the capabilities of a 2000$ computer with slightly above avg internet connection.

if running a node costs 1000's of dollars a year we've gone to far.

I think it would be helpful to rather move to BTC as a unit of costing CONOPS.

---

I'm pretty sure Charlie Lee was talking about 'hubris' the other day...

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Are they moving the goalposts again?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5yxyav/multilayered_networks_you_can_trade_off_security/

AFAIR I've been told, that LN is as secure as Bitcoin, that an LN transaction is the same as a Bitcoin transaction. Can we start to debate for real now, that they admit, that LN does have costs?

 

[Norway]

What is this? F2Pool mining BIP109????

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/456303

EDIT: Ok, this is not new. Sickpig told me this is happening once in a while. Not a new policy.

 

[sickpig]

@jbreher : get the 'permalink' of the comment you want, and hope that its owner doesn't delete it

http://archive.is/hmvfh

 

[Norway]

Fresh from the Meme Factory:

 

[sickpig]

 

[AdrianX]

Hello Solex,
I'm a long time Bitcoiner who has not been active in the social circles. I've preferred to stay on the sidelines, but with Core and Blockstream's latest attempts at subversion I've decided that Bitcoin needs every fighter it can get. I love what Bitcoin Unlimited is doing with these kinds of bounties, and more structured ways to decide consensus development, I figured I'd give this bounty a shot. I hope these graphs were what you are looking for, and if needed I can provide the CSVs for them: imgur.com/a/9zfwB This kind of motivation for community involvement is exactly what Bitcoin needs. Keep up the good work!

Those look good. Thank @MoneyFreeFromMasons looking at the history fee growth it you look on a longer time scale it looks like a hockey stick. I was wondering if fees projected on the basis of a 1MB block limited would continue that hockey stick if we continued to get the price growth.

And then what that would look like with segwit and bigger blocks.

To tell the story I think the graphs should reflect more historic data and there should be one where they're all on top of each other for easy analysis.

;-)

 

[digitsu]

My response to the threats of a UASF (aka, a node majority initiated minority hashpower fork).
https://github.com/digitsu/splitting-bitcoin

A UASF basically is a soft fork capable of splitting the network. Which is fine, as a measure to keep miners in check, the same way a majority hardfork is a way the miners can keep the economic nodes in check (system of checks and balances). BUT we need to prepare the ecosystem of that reality. Core would threaten this UASF and rally support of it because of the potential dangers of a split will induce economic nodes to support it. But they need to know that if executed with a minority of hashpower it will likely cause Bitcoin to split into 3. Thus is better to make exchanges and wallets aware of how to prepare for this situation

But first we have to dispel the notion that only core devs understand what the heck is going on (diverse client software implementations in the network keeps core devs in check)

 

[albin]

I think I learned something very unexpected messing around with twitter that runs very counter to common-sense expectations.

Regardless of what they do in real life wrt Bitcoin, almost everybody wants to be an unchallenged talking head on twitter. Almost no one is willing to engage in good faith followup questions / conversation that advance the discussion. I think you need a forum structure for that. On twitter's format, threads seem to be mainly virtue-signalling, prestige-accumulation, and tribe-building.

My conclusion: the nature of the format pretty much forces you to troll to get anywhere substantive!