Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion
Let's clear up some misconceptions:
1) Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability. It does provide more throughput, but Bitcoin scales the same way. The current flawed design makes it actually scaled quadratically (signature hashing). A good example for this would be the Towers of Hanoi with 3 levels (1 MB) and e.g. Towers of Hanoi with 5 levels (as 2 MB). Try it.
2) Increasing the block size limit is not a change of 1 line of code. This has been a false myth being spread by people who don't even understand what they are preaching. You can't just magically put that number into your client. It needs additional code for: 1) Activation method/threshold. 2) Replay/DoS protection. 3) Tests.
3) There is a present DoS attack risk at 2 MB due to point 2. Read: https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
4) A block size increase is a solution. Whilst I do not aim to dismiss the throughput increase, this is not a solution of any kind. If a mallicious attacker wanted to, they could fill these block up over night. Either that, or you could get enough demand that would fill it up very quickly. You will end up asking for X MB afterwards, which would further centralized Bitcoin whilst not improving scalability.
BIP148
Legacy chain
Jihancoin.
Can you guess which one I will be dumping?
1) Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability. It does provide more throughput, but Bitcoin scales the same way. The current flawed design makes it actually scaled quadratically (signature hashing). A good example for this would be the Towers of Hanoi with 3 levels (1 MB) and e.g. Towers of Hanoi with 5 levels (as 2 MB). Try it.
2) Increasing the block size limit is not a change of 1 line of code. This has been a false myth being spread by people who don't even understand what they are preaching. You can't just magically put that number into your client. It needs additional code for: 1) Activation method/threshold. 2) Replay/DoS protection. 3) Tests.
3) There is a present DoS attack risk at 2 MB due to point 2. Read: https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522
4) A block size increase is a solution. Whilst I do not aim to dismiss the throughput increase, this is not a solution of any kind. If a mallicious attacker wanted to, they could fill these block up over night. Either that, or you could get enough demand that would fill it up very quickly. You will end up asking for X MB afterwards, which would further centralized Bitcoin whilst not improving scalability.
The messenger is very important when the messenger is an obvious sophist. Not you, just to clarify.
I am not a sophist of any kind. 99% of my posts are true and I welcome anyone with better knowledge. I am also not even paid to combat the false knowledge, shills and whatnot whilst being very sure (and not referring to you) that certain institutions and groups are actively paying people to spread fake information in regards to Bitcoin, especially scaling.You're right. I was too busy yesterday to even check in. Today I woke up, saw the price and ran out to buy.
So it's hard fork panic part two? Jeezuz Murphy. I'm looking into it.
Sigh.
It seems that Bitmain wants to self-destruct themselves or they are unable to admit being wrong (or may blame BIP148 for the damage created by "Jihan Activated Hard fork"). Actually, if they do what they threaten the network with, there is a chance for 3 chains:So it's hard fork panic part two? Jeezuz Murphy. I'm looking into it.
Sigh.
BIP148
Legacy chain
Jihancoin.
Can you guess which one I will be dumping?