Wall Observer

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[hedgewizard]

I think we all know adaptive blocksize is no new thing. So, how does Bitpay's proposal keep large miners from gaming the blocksize?

 

[noobtrader]

@Richy_T Replying to a thread doesn't stop notifications. Click the link at the top to "Unwatch thread" instead.

@adamstgbit Are you planning anything special to celebrate the upcoming 10-day anniversary of your ban?

hmmm.... 10-day anniversary

i thought "anniversary" means "annually" celebration ???

 

[blackspidy]

And just when I thought $413 was a good point to exit my margin long. Oh, well. I'll set some buy orders and go to sleep. Ether way, I'll be pleasantly surprised tomorrow.

I finally have 0.9 BTC under my control. It's not enough, though. I need 1.0001 BTC before really celebrating

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[adamstgbit]

i'm not sure....i'm not sure what i will do once my ban is up.
i guess poeple are expecting somthing entertaining, i wouldn't want to disappoint poeple. lol.

 

[spiderbrain]

And just when I thought $413 was a good point to exit my margin long. Oh, well. I'll set some buy orders and go to sleep. Ether way, I'll be pleasantly surprised tomorrow.

I finally have 0.9 BTC under my control. It's not enough, though. I need 1.0001 BTC before really celebrating

Gezzus man add a couple of zeros!

 

[Dotto]

Mods of the old WO keep deleting 1 or 2 weeks old posts of mine that are totally on spot.


Hey censors!

Muhahahah

 

[spiderbrain]

That forum is completely dead. I actually got sucked in for a while thinking that was an actual free discussion. It's such a relief to be on here now where people can say whatever. However, the lack of core fans here is a little bit disappointing, in the name of rational argument.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[adamstgbit]

I think we all know adaptive blocksize is no new thing. So, how does Bitpay's proposal keep large miners from gaming the blocksize?

are you talking about the idea of letting miners vote on incresing the blocksize
"dynamic blocksize"

I think its in the miners best interest to have block size at just the right size.
they will want to keep some fee pressure, to ensure everyone pays a small fee,
and at the same time they will want enough space in each block to include as many fees as possible.

IMO they are the perfect canadiens to determine blocksize.
[doublepost=1458649085,1458648345][/doublepost]

That forum is completely dead. I actually got sucked in for a while thinking that was an actual free discussion. It's such a relief to be on here now where people can say whatever. However, the lack of core fans here is a little bit disappointing, in the name of rational argument.

bitcointalk.org is more of a centrally controled "disscion" on bitcoins current events then anything else
even the WO thread is censored.

The admins not only censor poeple, or move threads out of sight, they also employ an army of sock puppets to give the impression core has more support than they actually do.

and they are doing the same exact thing in chain.

 

[Dotto]

Dynamic blocksize and tx fees are non mutually exclusive, and seems like a great idea, so you don´t have this debate every x months and let every miner to free compite for the minimun tx that they are agree to include.

Monero works like this and is doing a great job at the moment

 

[LMGTFY]

That forum is completely dead. I actually got sucked in for a while thinking that was an actual free discussion. It's such a relief to be on here now where people can say whatever. However, the lack of core fans here is a little bit disappointing, in the name of rational argument.

Long time lurker, first time poster, BCT poster for far too long.

I'm not convinced I'd describe myself as a core fan (I'd certainly describe myself as not being a fan of core fans... hence why I lurk here - the discussions are far, far, far more civilised and informative, lacking as they are in the badly paraphrasing/second-guessing of Satoshi and the "hurry up and get lost" approach to debate ) but I'm probably more of a core fan than not.

Not sure I could offer rational arguments - when it comes to financial software I tend to be conservative, so I have some sympathy with core's apparent conservatism. I've also tended to think that the debate will ultimately be settled by the miners, not by devs, and certainly not by BCT, so the debate has been less immediately important to me (not saying it's not important, just saying there's very little/nothing I could do to influence the ultimate decision making).

tl;dr - nope, not really a core fan but I can pretend if you want!

 

[theZerg]

There is a strong argument that the large block approach IS more conservative...
1. MUCH less code
2. conceptually simpler
3. does not force users to sign transaction that (under the current rules) allows anyone to take that money.
4. No changes to lightweight wallets and other layers over the base protocol
5. No changes to transactions.

The only argument for it being less conservative is that:
1. Everyone must upgrade.

But even that argument fails under scrutiny:
In a 2MB the system pretty clearly indicates that you must upgrade -- your full client stops processing blocks and disconnects from the network.
With SW, the old clients will chug along thinking that they are working fine, but in actuality have been reduced to non-verifying clients and are therefore susceptible to a variety of attacks.

 

[LMGTFY]

@theZerg (sorry, can't find the "quote"/"reply" buttons that I'll swear were there a minute ago.)

Large blocks are still change - by "conservative" I mean not making any changes, i.e. favouring the status quo - until it's very clear a change is (a) necessary, and (b) appropriate.

Just to clarify my own position, I'm quite certain a change will be necessary - I'm much less convinced by the desirability of change occurring immediately, and I remain to be convinced about the ordering and extent of any changes (seg wit first, or not at all? Double block size, no change, or more than 2x?)

 

[adamstgbit]

watching core pressure >75% miners to adopt segwit, will be quite entertaining.

after careful consideration

it will become clear to miners that segwit is a trojan horse. they will see that going the path core has laid out will block the stream of BTC TX, and ultimately lead to the main chain unable to support itself without sufficient traffic and fees.

 

[adamstgbit]

segwit lays the groundwork required to divert traffic away from bitcoin on to another system.
how is this not a trojan horse?

"but fees will rise on the mainchain because Supply Vs Demand"
In what universe does lower demand = increased TX fees?

its no secret that ~90% of BTC tx are low value ~1$, once 90% of this demand is moved off chain there is no more fee pressure! the idea that >1000TX every 10mins will be willing to be competing for blockspace pushing fees in the 1-5$ range is retarded. there simply isn't that much demand. high value TX will have PLENTY of space once all the low value TX move to blockstream.

the reality of the situation is that bitcoin will now have to compete with blockstreams in terms of TX fees.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still stuck in the $415 range. Yawn.