All posts made by AliceGored in Bitcointalk.org's Wall Observer thread
1.
Post 14151690 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
Core Node Vs Classic Node
More like this =>
Core node
Classic node
1. Your transactions are
spam. Garbage2. The network is meant for high fee settlement transactions.
3. Just use a higher fee than the others trying to use this revolutionary, competition-less, 4 Chinese dude controlled, censhoreship proof network.
4. Investors only care about today, not tomorrow, nor tomorrow's potential.
4.5. Just sit back and get rich, stop complaining. Mewn.
People will beat down doors to use our expensive system... because reasons. You can't beat the decentralization of Antpool, Fish Pond, BitRage, and BTCCCP.
2.
Post 14151923 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
if there junk why are miners including them in blocks?
to get the fees
the TX themselve are probably all junk tho.
Actually, at levels like 0.2 - 0.3 btc per block, fees too are junk yes.
[1] Hence the presence of 0 tx blocks.
Personally
[2] I'm currently mining with -blockmaxsize=0. My connectivity is not that good so it'd take me a couple secs to upload a full block and then it would take some extra time to propagate, so I can't risk losing 25 btc for peanuts.
[1] No. Read up on tx free blocks, and
why they happen within 1-55 seconds of the previous block.
[2] Just... lol.
3.
Post 14152022 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
I'm not a pool and my hashrate is tiny so there is no guarantee I'll find blocks. I'm actually conducting a quantum experiment where consciousness interacts with hashing in order to ...generate hashing collisions and do so spectacularly against the odds. So if the experiment succeeds (in a universe of infinite possibilities, it has already succeeded) it would be a tragedy if I found a block and have it get orphaned because of my slow upload speed or other propagation and verification delays. Maxblock 0 it is then...
lels intensify...
4.
Post 14152961 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization). With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt. Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents. Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.
Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size! The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other! That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.
Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.
You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the trees
5.
Post 14153090 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
this place is just a nonstop bankster troll thread ... total dump now you have bitched yourselves to the banksters
Amen, fuggin' bankster basic bitch total dumpers all up in here. Someone should just nuke their accounts, clean the joint up.
6.
Post 14153366 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
Due to economy of scale and some miners having lower verification costs, it creates a race to the bottom of purging all but the most efficient miner (centralization). With increasing block sizes, there would likely be some huge miner that accepts 0.00000001 fee transactions while doing so would cause others to go bankrupt. Or the mega miner could just accept tiny or 0 fee transactions in the short term in order to bankrupt opponents. Hence a minimum transaction fee puts a floor on how low of a race to the bottom tactic you can enact.
Minimum transaction fee is the spam prevention mechanism of Bitcoin, not block size! The miners are unable to create one themselves because it would require collusion and it's also an attack vector they use against each other! That is why I say developers have to create a minimum transaction fee for each block size interval they set in order to scale Bitcoin.
Oh wise central planners. Please pick the best arbitrary economic variables possible... and only with unanimous neckbeard consensus in irc. These miners are hell bent on choking out this golden goose given the chance.
You keep looking but you can't find the woods
While you're hiding in the treesExcept you don't understand it's impossible for Bitcoin to not have central bankers unless it has an unlimited block size and no min transaction fee. Now that we've established Bitcoin already has central bankers (the developers with the miners having a veto override), they should actually use the correct variable in order to block spam (min transaction fee) instead of using the wrong one (block size).
That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.
7.
Post 14153524 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
That's like saying it's not possible to have a McLaren F1 without the Ameritech front bumperettes and a 1.8L. It is, and it's worth insisting on.
Nonsensical response.
For someone who sees international jewry as the malevolent force behind all their personal socioeconomic shortcomings, you sure suffer from an occasional lack of imagination.
8.
Post 14168903 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
So the definition of spam is something that is bought cheap?
The point is that it doesn't matter if it's free or paid, if what you pay is near-zero cost. It definitely cannot be a factor of ruling out spam if the fees are too cheap and aren't an adequate deterrent.
And even "adequate deterrent" is wrong, as a term, because a script kiddie might not afford a good spam attack but a deep-pocketed adversary may not be deterred by the costs, because by attacking in this fashion he is getting side-benefits by harming BTC.
Perhaps, we could run a quantum experiment and determine if human consciousness could limit the number of transactions being processed by the network.
Everyone... now, please, close your eyes and imagine spam transactions going away... imagine strings of 128kB blocks... your rasb pi gently processing all the most important financial settlement contracts in the world... Imagine a world, without competition, where people will pay more and more just to use our holy ledger, investors lining up to buy a piece of a network that has already had its best years of growth. Together, we
can do this.
9.
Post 14169303 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
AlexGR, do you allow for the possibility that maybe small blocks isn't a good idea?
Timing is crucial.
Even 1TB per year blocks (20mb/block) will have its time when 20mb/block will be "alright".
Upgrade too soon, you'll have 10gb txs and 990gb spam.
Upgrade on time, you'll get 800-950gb txs and 50-200gb spam.
You really think miners are complete idiots, then. Chomping at the bit to bloat blocks to infinity with free spam...
~Come with me, reader, into the mind of the economic central planner... where "capitalism" is one broken production quota away from abject devastation and horror.~
10.
Post 14169437 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
i guess there is a spectrum...
undoubtedly
11.
Post 14169535 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
We're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.
Looks like it's been a while since you ran a full node.
60GB? Oh my!
ZOMG, the totality of all transactions until now is (barely) bigger than downloading GTAV... after 7 years!
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography@metzdowd.com/msg09964.htmlWe're at 15GB. I think I heard the Ethereum blockchain is at 10GB already. And nobody actually uses it for anything yet. I say good luck to 'em.
The data are a bit rusty for btc (and the numbers for visa are also calculated wrong)... Right now we are closing to 70gb with btc.
You really think miners are complete idiots, then. Chomping at the bit to bloat blocks to infinity with free spam...
~Come with me, reader, into the mind of the economic central planner... where "capitalism" is one broken production quota away from abject devastation and horror.~
If miners didn't mine txs => "Ohhh those bad miners are not mining txs... we must hard fork to show them a lesson"
If miners do mine txs => "Ohhhh those bad miners are mining junk txs... we must give them a lesson"
Whatever they do, it can be used for political friction.
Miners deciding what size blocks to make and what price they charge for space in them is called Capitalism. What you advocate is something else... I'm sub-consciously transmitting that term to you now... please stand by.
12.
Post 14169744 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
The whole crisis / urgency scenario was bullshit, as was the "problem=>reaction=>solution" - in terms of ...proposed "solution".
Amen.
"the malicious miner DoS limit from 2010 is still in place, delays & fees
up, investor confidence in future capacity growth
down => listen to technical experts: to increase a constant would be a harsh blow to muh decentralization, non-mining rasb pi node on LJR internet is sad => let me tell you about highly connected and well funded Blockstream pre-paid scrip payments
lightning hubs, out in 2 weeks."
13.
Post 14169879 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
"We can't have 1mbforevah"
"We want 1cent-txsforevah" (and if we get to 2 cents we say the network is down to its knees because we didn't pay the 2-3-5 cent fee)
Newsflash: The system is not based on the premise of 1 cent txs forevah.
Fees are dynamic, based on the load. You don't pay the fees => you get in line. And wait.
The network operates normally for those that follow proper tx pricing. If they don't, it's usually because their wallet makes wrong assumptions about fees. They should upgrade to core 0.12. But then they'd have to download 10gb txs and 60gb spam... ooops.
My quantum experiment isn't quite working as well as I'd hoped.
It boils down to this:
Those in favor of lifting the central protocol limit are
not in favor of unlimited free transactions... they
are in favor of miners determining pricing along their supply curve. The fact that you insist on running your solo mine with 0 tx blocks proves this point. There is a cost to the miner in mining larger blocks, both directly (stale risk), and indirectly, in terms of overall network health.
You, otoh, insist that miners need the steady hand of blockstream to determine where that supply curve abruptly stops. The core dev's are the power rangers protecting the system from outright collapse under the load of massive free spam being shoved into blocks. Of course that part
isn't centralization tho.
14.
Post 14170118 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
If you've seen pictures of Gmaxwell and Luke-Jr you've seen they look super decentralized.
http://i.imgur.com/F2O5vRg.pngLuke Jr couldn't be located, possibly busy putting heretics to the sword of righteousness.
15.
Post 14171125 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.47h):
-snip-
If I am a spammer and you give me 1mb to fill, and I fill it, and you give me 10mb and I do the same, will you keep giving me 100mb, 1gb, 10gb blocks etc etc, where I fill them all?
-snip-
Get your shit together, it took you
7 years to fill the 1MB.
For the Nth time, we simply disagree on
who should decide what is spam or not. You say Core developers, comprised of the blockstream clique. Others say the miners are better qualified to determine their production levels and prices.
16.
Post 14188606 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.48h):
Wow...
Soon, this epic thread will just be the two blockstream shills, with JJG lapping up their every word. Sad days gentlemen.
17.
Post 14276566 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.48h):
The +0.75MB equivalent potential capacity gain with segwit is the free candy to get you in the "permanent 75% fee discount for signature heavy settlement tx" van.
Added benefit of creating a massive amount of zombie nodes that don't verify or understand witness data at all.
No time to explain kid, get in!
18.
Post 14426070 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.48h):
I was reading some tweeters today... and it got me thinking.
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/717023841529114625As we can change the very way Bitcoin works (segwit) and more, via
soft fork, including difficulty, with 4 chinese / 1 Georgian dudes' approval...
Is there a way
we they can
soft fork the price a little higher?
Just "brain-storming" here guys...
19.
Post 14554302 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
Can you guise just man up and pay the 2 cent fee for the next block?
BTCitcoin is high powered central bank settlement monies, you gotta pay to play, poors may use doge. And don't give me that crap about planning for the future, cypherpunks are busy
coding that future. They're not even going to sell us the future either, it's all open source.
Segwit in April. Boom.
20.
Post 14686469 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
Yeah! My buy limit orders went through , time to wire more fiat for another round of buys. These shakeouts don't scare veterans who have been riding the rollercoaster for some time, just another buying opportunity.
Bitcoin veterans, like BitUsher, wire filthy fiat to exchanges to scoop $450-something coins like you wouldn't believe.
While ignoring a crescendo of ill concealed laughter, like a bozz .wb mr kern
21.
Post 14716595 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
Yeah! My buy limit orders went through , time to wire more fiat for another round of buys. These shakeouts don't scare veterans who have been riding the rollercoaster for some time, just another buying opportunity.
Bitcoin veterans, like BitUsher, wire filthy fiat to exchanges to scoop $450-something coins like you wouldn't believe.
While ignoring a crescendo of ill concealed laughter, like a bozz .Guise, everything's fine. We just need to wait until monday for the legacy banking institushuns to process BitUsher's wire. He bought $450-something like a boss, he will buy $440-something like a maniac.
It is April and segwit is released and fully absorbing any additional tx volume we may see for the halflings. Anything below $1200 is a buy, and cheaper than JJG's first coin, which he still keeps on the exchange as a sort of momento, a relic from bygone happy days. Banish fear, mewn sewn!
22.
Post 14734585 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.49h):
.. and it just seems so amazing that Gavin and Wright are conceiving the bitcoin community to be so gullible as to go along with this bullshit...
Well, we got you to buy $1200 coins, so...
23.
Post 14756772 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Id say the only reason we care is because of the 1 million coins.
I've been hearing this for so long that it doesn't even make sense because such an uncertainty should always be priced-in. I mean if Satoshi tomorrow sends the coins to the bitcoin-eater address then that would be perceived as a "positive" move, raising the market, which would indicate that the market had already priced-in the uncertainty (otherwise it would not move at all). So it is priced in already - at least to some extent.
Besides, we know for a fact that PoW mining is going to "dump" on us another 6 million coins in the future. What difference would 1 million coins do - that already exist and are already priced-in in terms of market supply and scarcity? Not much.
With the qualifier of "at least to some extent"... Everything and anything is already priced in, at least to some extent.
If coins move, some uncertainty is removed. Currently, we are unsure if the satoshi hoard is lost or inaccessible. Knowing that it
is accessible would be a big piece of new information, and would result in market reaction.
The future 100 years of newly created coins is known, and almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
24.
Post 14757083 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
If coins move, some uncertainty is removed. Currently, we are unsure if the satoshi hoard is lost or inaccessible. Knowing that it is accessible would be a big piece of new information, and would result in market reaction.
The future 100 years of newly created coins is known, and almost completely unrelated to the issue at hand.
Personally I believe Satoshi is alive and well and has nothing to do with Wright or Kleiman. As for the stash I believe he doesn't even need to touch the initial stash:
a) for ethical reasons / so that noone can say that he used his project to become rich and/or that this is a ponzi scheme to enrich its creator
b) because his skill set can certainly provide for him while living under the radar - he could probably make hundreds of thousands in wages by working somewhere in the field of his expertise, allowing him a comfortable lifestyle (if he didn't have one already). As "twisted" as it may sound, he may be living an intentionally "poor" life.
I believe his stash is definitely accessible. As he said himself, you should never throw a wallet
If he is to use coins, it might be coins he bought from miners, or mined himself, perhaps later (h2 2010, 11/12/13, etc). I suspect he could make an exception if Bitcoin needed critical funding in some area. It has been discussed that at some point there may be an upgrade (with multi-year advance warning) in order to make pubkey coins unspendable if they haven't been moved in a certain timeframe, so as to not have quantum-computing related instabilities where early pubkey coins are accessed and sold. I suspect that in such a scenario he might leave the biggest part (or all) of the stash unmoved so as to be rendered unusable.
As for the "next 100 years", most of the coins won't be mined in 100 years - but in the short/mid-term. We are at a rate of 110k coins per month. By the time we reach the next halving we'll have an extra 3mn coins. And then you go to something like +1.4 for the next four years. If the market is pricing-in a dump of millions of coins that will be PoW'ed in the next years, it can definitely price-in risks like Satoshi's stash. I mean MtGox went out and said "ooops we lost 850k coins" (650k after the 200k discovery) - back when they had double the price and represented a far bigger piece of the "slice".
So I'm not that worried about satoshi's stash.
That’s a lot of speculation there, perhaps the makings of a nice self-published e-book. At least you’re in the correct section.
Markets try to price in uncertainty, and adjust expectations based on new information. This would be new information. The point still stands, the coin creation schedule is known, with surety and in detail. The accessibility of the satoshi hoard is not. Period.
That said, given all of Wright’s behavior so far, he certainly seems to be a pretender. In all likelihood, the coins won’t move, and the uncertainty about them will remain largely unchanged. In the extremely unlikely case that they do move, the market will react, which would demonstrate to you clearly that it wasn’t “priced in”.
The only possible explanation (if Craig’s legit) for dragging this out so long would be to give the market plenty of warning, and allow his detractors plenty of rope before the big reveal.
25.
Post 14772196 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.htmlDay in, day out, there is trolling, targeted attacks, shilling on social media targeted toward us.
Poor Wlad, did he think they'd be able to pervert p2p cash into a crippled settlement token for off chain products with nary a complaint?
I can agree that Gavin's judgement has been weak, often underestimating adversarial actions and actors. Handing over the repo to these guys, for example.
26.
Post 14792240 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
problem is even the noobs now use google and have access to a wealth of information unlike 2013 when everybody was a noob,lol.
You're still a noob, pumpy. Stick to eth pump thread!
kids these days. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Don't hate on the etherbutters, they've been doing yeoman's work on mopping up tx's and investment that can't fit in 1MB blocks, picking up demand that Bitcoin doesn't want. 10% of BTC's daily transactions and counting... it's a thankless job, but it helps keep BTC fees low while keeping rasb pi full economic nodes on dialup, safe.
27.
Post 14801043 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
From Peter Todd's chinese AMA,
https://www.bikeji.com/t/3831
So no segwit until HF code is released (Blockstream considers "released" a pull req, apparently). Wake me up in 14 months grentlement.
28.
Post 14801352 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
no sigwit no pump ?
SELL ?
My reading is that they won't
activate segwit until there is a
pull req for a hard fork.
Say the HF code comes out in July, miners then activate segwit, and the HF code is programmed to not activate until July 2017.
Sadly, it's not looking good for additional capacity in time for the halving. Shocker.
29.
Post 14801436 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
Agreed, the relief valve working just fine.
30.
Post 14801606 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.50h):
I checked out of curiosity, seems like their block explorer is full of mining and poloniex txs... so I don't think they are taking any load from BTC. Actually it wouldn't make any sense to do so as LTC, DASH and DOGE have more widespread adoption than ETH - they are the primary candidates for taking more txs.
Speculation and mining are the main economic activity of all coins, including BTC. A growth-capped BTC is good for all alts, I'm sure your DASH will have its day in the sun too. No need for concern, just keep supporting Blockstream, it'll happen.
31.
Post 15417392 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.54h):
Since Jihan Wu of Antpool threatened to boycott SegWit his Antpool has lost 6% of total hashrate (was 23% now 17%)
https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=48hrs... maybe miners are repulsed by pool operators who want to dictate policy.
Nullc ain't got time for people voting with their CPU's... Besides, he might even be satoshi, here to fix all the mistakes he made in the original design:
Where nullc conclusively demonstrates that free market incentives will never work for Bitcoin mining:
Miners must never be called upon to determine the size of their own blocks. This power shall be centralized into the hands of the Core technicians, thus correcting an extreme mistake and oversight in satoshi's original design.
Extra points for using the emotional buzzword "censoring" to describe rational economic behavior of miners in the operation of their business.
Dragon want $700 2nite?
He's gonna have to get through those 2200 coins at $650 first.
32.
Post 15417550 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.54h):
last time we didn't know what to expect, and this time we are headed into it with another unpredictable complication a very stubborn limit on transaction volume.
I think it's going to have a negative effect on growth, but we have to wait and see how it plays out. I hope you are all here to play the next one 4 years from now.
Pretty much a non-factor in terms of limiting growth of bitcoin and upcoming expected transactions.
Accordingly, there are
timely scaling solutions in the pipeline...
No kidding, it's like he knows nothing about segwit in April.
33.
Post 15428279 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.54h):
To the minute eh? The rumors/posting were out hours before the jump, and the lack of any denial from the miners escalates the chance these events were correlated.
p.s. *gasps
Possibly, but the timing no longer coincides well. Also, such a development would surely instill uncertainty, which is not bullish.
p.s. /me performs a tracheotomy to aid your breathing.
A year ago uncertainty was scary, 6 months ago uncertainty was scary, 4 months ago... "individuals" said some nice things and took some pictures, and made a deal they don't intend to keep. Now... well... hell, it almost feels like a relief someone is calling the big bluff.
P.S. murder isn't cool you two
34.
Post 15553937 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.55h):
my bet: we are lacking any fantasy right now. no event that we could rally into. the halving was theoretically perfect for a nice rally but the rally got interrupted by the finex and DAO shit. so now what events should markets focus on? there are none. so all thats left is the reduced daily supply, but i doubt that will be shortterm enough.
On the contrary.
Bitcoin movement has been disappointing lately. Any idea when will the block size issue be fixed?
It could be sooner than many expect.
Some fault the miners for being slow to act, and too trusting... but in reality, they have to be very careful. If they do end up being compelled to do something contrary to the wishes of the dominant repository and its developers... they need to have taken every reasonable step at a compromise, an amicable middle ground. In a sense, they need to have been screwed over in an obvious way, to give them the moral justification to act in the spirit of the original agreement.
This may lead to the most ethically profound moment for Bitcoin yet, and the full "coming out" party for the functionality of Bitcoin's "core" incentive mechanism:
And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4seyk3/its_quiettoo_quiet/
35.
Post 15783809 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.56h):
my fav bit.
Bitcoin will have a hard-fork, eventually, I think. When bitcoin has a HF, there will be 2 chains after the fork and there will be 2 coins. It is almost guaranteed that some people will refuse the new chain and will remain on the old chain. There are enough people with significant amounts of bitcoin who will never agree to a fork and can afford to keep mining the old chain. Ethereum demonstrated this issue very well. In bitcoin it will be much bigger, because the “old” bitcoin may be worth as much as all of ethereum (1 billion USD). It will not undermine bitcoin’s value very much, but it will cause some chaos with users, wallets and exchanges. This is why a HF needs to be very carefully planned and executed with plenty of advance notice. We also need to learn from Ethereum and consider adding some anti-replay defenses to help users maintain separation of the two chains in their wallets.
I think hes right eventually we will HF but hes exaggerating the possibility of a chain split as a result IMO. if Core is supporting 2MB hardfork when the time comes ( in like 2years? ), i dont see a chain split as a possibility. I guess maybe there could be some die hard group that rejects the fork with <1% hashrate...but its not like the HF is proposing to alter the immutable blockchain, or something equally ridiculous. I disagree with the idea of adding some anti-replay defenses, the other chain should be viewed as INVALID, and there's no use catering to an invalid chain...
A 5%-hash chain of BTC will be producing blocks at something like ...200 minutes. And with difficulty adjustment in 10 months (which will not fix the issue) it'll be DOA.
A strong miner majority hard fork to a bigger max_block_size would be much more likely to dominate in Bitcoin vs Ethereum's DAO bailout fork, directly because of the difference in difficulty adjustment. A good point, which can't be overstated. Core won't be supporting the HF though. Any change from Core, from here on out, will be a soft fork. And with some clever programming tactics, you can do just about anything you can imagine with a SF. Just need a half dozen miners on-board with
Blockstream CTO Maxwell's the sole repo's roadmap to activate it.
It would require proof-of-work change and diff starting from a lower point. So then you have 3 coins and the one is unusable.
There is going to be a split Bitcoin one way or the other... if HF supporters get mining support, the 1MB4EVA clan will change PoW and reset diff... and if 1MB4EVA + soft-fork-salad
retains ASIC warehouse mining support, HF supporters will change PoW, and reset difficulty. Just need to get it listed to Polo, and you're off to the races.
Wouldn't it be ironic?... if the "immutable 1MB ('cept for constant soft forks)" Bitcoin was mined in 4 gigantic chinese chicken coops... While the "higher max throughput" Bitcoin was highly decentralized with GPUs and stealing mining power and interest from ETH/ETC. It's a move in the game. We just haven't reached that point... yet.
36.
Post 15784076 (copy this link) (by AliceGored) (scraped on 2020-04-04_Sat_14.56h):
my fav bit.
Bitcoin will have a hard-fork, eventually, I think. When bitcoin has a HF, there will be 2 chains after the fork and there will be 2 coins. It is almost guaranteed that some people will refuse the new chain and will remain on the old chain. There are enough people with significant amounts of bitcoin who will never agree to a fork and can afford to keep mining the old chain. Ethereum demonstrated this issue very well. In bitcoin it will be much bigger, because the “old” bitcoin may be worth as much as all of ethereum (1 billion USD). It will not undermine bitcoin’s value very much, but it will cause some chaos with users, wallets and exchanges. This is why a HF needs to be very carefully planned and executed with plenty of advance notice. We also need to learn from Ethereum and consider adding some anti-replay defenses to help users maintain separation of the two chains in their wallets.
I think hes right eventually we will HF but hes exaggerating the possibility of a chain split as a result IMO. if Core is supporting 2MB hardfork when the time comes ( in like 2years? ), i dont see a chain split as a possibility. I guess maybe there could be some die hard group that rejects the fork with <1% hashrate...but its not like the HF is proposing to alter the immutable blockchain, or something equally ridiculous. I disagree with the idea of adding some anti-replay defenses, the other chain should be viewed as INVALID, and there's no use catering to an invalid chain...
A 5%-hash chain of BTC will be producing blocks at something like ...200 minutes. And with difficulty adjustment in 10 months (which will not fix the issue) it'll be DOA.
A strong miner majority hard fork to a bigger max_block_size would be much more likely to dominate in Bitcoin vs Ethereum's DAO bailout fork, directly because of the difference in difficulty adjustment. A good point, which can't be overstated. Core won't be supporting the HF though. Any change from Core, from here on out, will be a soft fork. And with some clever programming tactics, you can do just about anything you can imagine with a SF. Just need a half dozen miners on-board with
Blockstream CTO Maxwell's the sole repo's roadmap to activate it.
It would require proof-of-work change and diff starting from a lower point. So then you have 3 coins and the one is unusable.
There is going to be a split Bitcoin one way or the other... if HF supporters get mining support, the 1MB4EVA clan will change PoW and reset diff... and if 1MB4EVA + soft-fork-salad
retains ASIC warehouse mining support, HF supporters will change PoW, and reset difficulty. Just need to get it listed to Polo, and you're off to the races.
Wouldn't it be ironic?... if the "immutable 1MB ('cept for constant soft forks)" Bitcoin was mined in 4 gigantic chinese chicken coops... While the "higher max throughput" Bitcoin was highly decentralized with GPUs and stealing mining power and interest from ETH/ETC. It's a move in the game. We just haven't reached that point... yet.
my perception is that there simply is no support for the 1MB4EVA people.
Your perception is wrong. They have the support of bitcoin.org, r/bitcoin, this here forum of elevated discourse... you know, the important stuff.
It's about control, and control of information is a key component.
economic majority isn't in that camp... ( we saw the open letter )
Letters and agreements are trash, cash and hash is all that matters.
the miners certainly aren't int that camp
Seem to be from where I sit.
and the devs are not in that camp either.
most devs, outside of core, aren't in that camp
and i'd bet devs that contribute to core dont even put themselves in that camp
Guess what happens if a prospective dev hops in the Core_dev IRC room and eventually voices a plan outside the scope of Gregory's roadmap?
is Gmaxwellhouse really saying "4EVA"
Of course not, they will add merge mined sidechains like segwit which takes
actual blocksize up to a potential 4MB. It also gives a 75% economic discount to signature heavy transactions like LN opening, balancing, and closing transactions, coming soon®. Your node will be crippled in terms of network awareness, but will still function, we want you to come along.
1MB is not here to stay, but its here for now, and its not a big deal.
This is fine.
