Wall Observer

[Norway]

@Fatman3002
Ok. But do you mean "most likely" by "very possible"?

 

[adamstgbit]

I could give a shit either way regarding the extent to which one technicality is implemented or another technicality in order to achieve scaling; however, seg wit remains a very big deal for bitcoin and for scaling and will likely go a long ways to resolving a lot of scaling issues, even though it doesn't seem like much in comparison to bitcoin's potential and likely imminent growth.

Also, seg wit seems to involve several uncertainties concerning how it is going to play out, once it goes live. I get the sense that seg wit is going to allow a lot of expansion capacity in bitcoin and also the ability of bitcoin to securely absorb many of the benefits of a large number of alts, including ETH, as sidechains or some other variation.

segwit along with sidechains will completely decimate the altcoin market

the new model will be

experiment on a sidechain, and then if the experiment is a success and deemed profitable for bitcoin, include the new feather in the Core Chain

no one need speculate on alts anymore, side chains have a fixed value to the BTC.

KA-BOOM my mind is blown.

 

[Norway]

@adamstgbit
I'd prefer they put segwit on a sidechain. To me, segwit is just bloatware not solving anything. And don't give me that "Oh, moar advanced scripting on the blockchain is cool."

Most of the logic should be held off chain. Javascript runs in your browser, not in TCP/IP.

 

[adamstgbit]

chicken and egg problem

we need segwit before we can have side chains

 

[Norway]

I don't think we need any of them.
[doublepost=1458068800][/doublepost]ChangeTip & Shapeshift does today what sidechains promise.

 

[adamstgbit]

@adamstgbit
Most of the logic should be held off chain. Javascript runs in your browser, not in TCP/IP.

analogies aside, bitcoin NEEDS scripting capabilities to function, and it needs to improve its scripting capabilities if it is to survive. network effect can only carry bitcoin so far, at the end of the day bitcoin needs to be the best.
[doublepost=1458069015][/doublepost]

I don't think we need any of them.
[doublepost=1458068800][/doublepost]ChangeTip & Shapeshift does today what sidechains promise.

we dont need anything
we WANT everything.

Bitcoin is the decentralization of world domination; will bitcoin survive or thrive, who knows!

 

[Norway]

Bitcoin has scripting capabilities today. Doesn't need turing complete scripting language that can make huge memory leaks. Less is more in a protocol.

And you don't need "sidechain technology" to lock up some bitcoin on a completely different system.
[doublepost=1458069414][/doublepost]I just want onchain scaling. And it's on it's way!

 

[adamstgbit]

i agree for now all that is necessary is some good old onchain scaling, but i do believe trying to avoid the inevitable is a foolish pastime.

 

[Norway]

Not sure if we agree on what's "inevitable", but that's ok
[doublepost=1458070780][/doublepost]Sounds like you don't think bitcoin can scale onchain longterm.
(I think it can).

 

[freetrader]

We only have a hundred and something years to find out!

 

[JayJuanGee]

segwit along with sidechains will completely decimate the altcoin market

the new model will be

experiment on a sidechain, and then if the experiment is a success and deemed profitable for bitcoin, include the new feather in the Core Chain

no one need speculate on alts anymore, side chains have a fixed value to the BTC.

KA-BOOM my mind is blown.

I think so, and if someone finds a way to monetize making the connection between the alt (with the innovative theory), then that innovative alt largely gets absorbed into the bitcoin ecosystem.
[doublepost=1458071454][/doublepost]

I don't think we need any of them.
[doublepost=1458068800][/doublepost]ChangeTip & Shapeshift does today what sidechains promise.

You and a lot of other people may believe that we do not need any of this crap, but pretty much seg wit has already been agreed to, so now, it is just a matter of what is built on top of it to supplement and/or to enhance, especially once seg wit goes live.
[doublepost=1458071714][/doublepost]

We only have a hundred and something years to find out!

Sad as it may be, most of us will be ded in 50 years or even less, even if we do not realize it, at the moment.

 

[Norway]

@JayJuanGee
I don't think segwit has been agreed to. Who runs the code? Classic put in it's roadmap "a simplified version" of segwit. We'll see what that is...

 

[yefi]

Nervy on ETH flogged em all off, last few a shade over 31.

Too much profit sitting there to watch it fade, hope I was right. Set a lot of low ball bids up in case it pulls back - from the low 20s and way down to 13. May be wrong, but I was feeling too edgy. It's a long way from 'over' but I would not be surprised to see a mega dump at some point soon - it's just knowing 'when' of course!

Selling 'too early' is not the best philosophy. But it's better than the worst.

You made the right decision imho - turn before the herd turns. Don't panic buy back in at a disadvantageous position though - bubbles love to set wily traps for us.

 

[Matthew Light]

ETH is great too, but has that infinite emission problem...

ETH emission today is much lower than Bitcoin's was for its first four years. When Ethereum changes to Proof-of-Stake in a year, emission will be 0-2% per annum - almost nothing and far below Bitcoin's issuance rate through the late 2020s.

And them switch to POS in future, that prevented me from invest. If they fork and change this features could be quite interesting.

Proof-of-Stake is actually a great idea from a scalability and energy-consumption perspective. With weak subjectivity, it ought to work perfectly well. I am not sure why so many people are opposed to it, other than that it is something new.

Of course, no one is forced to invest, but cryptocurrency value is all about network effect. That's why what Bitcoin Core has done is so terribly damaging.
[doublepost=1458074208][/doublepost]

You made the right decision imho - turn before the herd turns. Don't panic buy back in at a disadvantageous position though - bubbles love to set wily traps for us.

I think one has to weigh both projects and see which project has a bright future and which does not. It's pretty clear to me that the Bitcoin project right now is in a condition of failure. Will it recover and take back the mindshare / credibility crown from Ethereum? Maybe so, but I'm certainly not betting on it. It sure looks like a replay of the MySpace / Facebook race to me.

I have a huge amount of respect for the people on this forum, but I think you all have been living and breathing Bitcoin for so long that it is hard for you to evaluate things otherwise than as Bitcoin Uber Alles. Kind of a sunk cost fallacy. As someone who almost invested a small amount of money in 2009/2010 but missed that boat, and finally decided that the future of the global monetary system is cryptocurrency, not any kind of return to precious metals, I feel I am more impartial about what the 99% of people with no crypto investments are going to do as they enter this sector. They will be going for the "2.0" version in preference to the "1.0" technology of Bitcoin. And everyone I know who has gotten interested or actually made new crypto investments is putting the bulk of their money into Ethereum, not Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is still not securable from hackers and thieves, while Ethereum is because of its fully-programmable blockchain. That's crucial if you want to replace the global monetary system. People who say that Bitcoin can be extended to provide all these new features if they become important should see the incredible difficulty in even getting an absolutely necessary blocksize increase done, and realize that getting consensus for adding advanced features to Bitcoin is highly unlikely.

 

[adamstgbit]

Not sure if we agree on what's "inevitable", but that's ok
[doublepost=1458070780][/doublepost]Sounds like you don't think bitcoin can scale onchain longterm.
(I think it can).

I think we can scale onchain to ~8MB then we need to wait for faster internet, or dev a second layer solution.

I do believe the adoption ( or more to the point TX/sec growth ) rate will far exceed the tech improvements, second layer solution will be required sooner than you think. and i do believe ultimately, it doesn't make sense to have main chain process every single TX on the planet, even if the internet is so fast that could handle it.

It doesn't make sense to force poeple to use the second layer by coding self imposed limitations. thats just self imposing a competitive disadvantage. why why why would you do that?

There is much value to having second layer, being able to perform 100000TX at a fraction of the cost = more functionality = more adoption.

i believe "if you build it they will come", and i know for a fact that " if you don't build it they won't come"

thats why i want bigger block, second layer, high end scripting lang, and more ideas!

 

[Norway]

@adamstgbit
What do you think would happen if blocks were 100 MB on average today? Uneven playingfield?

 

[sickpig]

@adamstgbit

what's bad about SegWit:

- firstly it substitutes a scarse economic good, block space, with two new goods splitting the original in two parts. The first one is considered "noble", in fact it receives a completely arbitrary discount of 75% when computing tx fee. The second one is treated as "bad" and for some reasons won't get any discount. the former is tx signature, the latter it's transaction "body". This the worst part ever, it changes in a fundamental way bitcoin economic incentives.

- secondly it is falsely proposed as a scaling solution when it is not. Scaling it's a matter of bandwidth more than anything else, and guess what? with SegWit, as per current BIP, you could get 4 MB blocks. Those blocks has to be relaid and fetched by full nodes, only after validation phase a node could decide to drop the signature. So what's the difference between SegWit and just increasing max blk size to 4 MB in terms of bandwidth? there's no difference whatsoever.

- thirdly, SegWit will be introduced has a soft-fork. listen, you're changing the very way we append data to the holy block chain and you are going to ask for permission only to the miners (sf)? Adding insult to injury you're going to deploy this feature in a minor release (0.12.x), are you kidding me?

I'm not even start considering all other things mentioned here (e.g. script versioning), the above 3 are enough for me to reject SegWit.

That said, in my opinion consensus rules have to be changed only via hard-fork, full stop.

 

[_mr_e]

ETH emission today is much lower than Bitcoin's was for its first four years. When Ethereum changes to Proof-of-Stake in a year, emission will be 0-2% per annum - almost nothing and far below Bitcoin's issuance rate through the late 2020s.



Proof-of-Stake is actually a great idea from a scalability and energy-consumption perspective. With weak subjectivity, it ought to work perfectly well. I am not sure why so many people are opposed to it, other than that it is something new.

Of course, no one is forced to invest, but cryptocurrency value is all about network effect. That's why what Bitcoin Core has done is so terribly damaging.
[doublepost=1458074208][/doublepost]

I think one has to weigh both projects and see which project has a bright future and which does not. It's pretty clear to me that the Bitcoin project right now is in a condition of failure. Will it recover and take back the mindshare / credibility crown from Ethereum? Maybe so, but I'm certainly not betting on it. It sure looks like a replay of the MySpace / Facebook race to me.

I have a huge amount of respect for the people on this forum, but I think you all have been living and breathing Bitcoin for so long that it is hard for you to evaluate things otherwise than as Bitcoin Uber Alles. Kind of a sunk cost fallacy. As someone who almost invested a small amount of money in 2009/2010 but missed that boat, and finally decided that the future of the global monetary system is cryptocurrency, not any kind of return to precious metals, I feel I am more impartial about what the 99% of people with no crypto investments are going to do as they enter this sector. They will be going for the "2.0" version in preference to the "1.0" technology of Bitcoin. And everyone I know who has gotten interested or actually made new crypto investments is putting the bulk of their money into Ethereum, not Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is still not securable from hackers and thieves, while Ethereum is because of its fully-programmable blockchain. That's crucial if you want to replace the global monetary system. People who say that Bitcoin can be extended to provide all these new features if they become important should see the incredible difficulty in even getting an absolutely necessary blocksize increase done, and realize that getting consensus for adding advanced features to Bitcoin is highly unlikely.

What exactly does eth do to prevent theft?

 

[JayJuanGee]

@JayJuanGee
I don't think segwit has been agreed to. Who runs the code? Classic put in it's roadmap "a simplified version" of segwit. We'll see what that is...

Maybe I am not "in tune" sufficiently to understand, and my understanding is that seg wit is going to go through and go live in May-ish because it is generally agreed upon by everyone that matters....

Surely, we hear some very loud people complaining that some kind of actual physical blocksize increase should occur first, but none of those kinds of loud proposals have been agreed to.

I understand sufficiently well to know that I do not really understand the technicalities, but in essence, my understanding is that for about a month, seg wit has been on the testnet, and the plan is to go live with seg wit in May 2016 - surely there could be some tweaking with the final live version of the code, but in essence some variation of what is going to be implemented has already achieved consensus (which could actually end up being tweaked in one way or another depending on testnet results/discoveries).

I understand that some people have been very loud in asserting that seg wit has not reached consensus, etc etc etc... but really, I believe that a large number of those loud people are attempting to argue that a physical hard blocksize limit increase should occur first (before seg wit) or some kind of governance change (within a hardfork)... should occur first or soon and bitcoin is dying ... blah blah blah... which merely seems to be attempting to keep alive battles.. that may need to await seg wit activation first (and they don't like it).

None of us really know for sure, and those other issues about a physical blocksize increase or governance could get resolved at any time if there are certain kinds of changes of events or changes of minds or changes of hearts, but in reality and in the real direction, those other battles are likely not to get resolved before Seg wit goes live and those other battles will likely linger for quite some time after seg wit goes live (at least it seems)... but none of the fact that the battles are expressed in loud ways substantiates any claim that seg wit has not largely and materially already reached consensus amongst those persons and entities that matter.. that's why there is a plan for it to go live, fairly soon.

 

[Fatman3002]

"Surely, we hear some very loud people complaining that some kind of actual physical blocksize increase should occur first"

Pure gold.