Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 160 results by agath
Re: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell
Early adopter here. I also agree with ALEX-BTC and I am really fed up and disappointed by core and how they manage things. I really wish that BU/Classic/EC and maybe updated XT will reach the supermajority with their PoW and kick core out of the way.
Oops, sono arrivato a questo thread tramite Google. Nei mesi scorsi ho lavorato alla versione italiana di bip39 da includere in un progetto, l'ho proposta ed è stata approvata:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/italian.txt
Non ero a conoscenza della vostra iniziativa ...
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0039/italian.txt
Non ero a conoscenza della vostra iniziativa ...
Price ain't related to block size alone and covers many other factors such as user base, adoption, volume, news, etc...
You cannot decide the price of a coin based on mining factor alone...
By saying "cheaply", do you mean you want fee lesser than 0.0002 BTC per transaction???
You cannot decide the price of a coin based on mining factor alone...
By saying "cheaply", do you mean you want fee lesser than 0.0002 BTC per transaction???
How can increase the adoption if blocks are full and TXfee keeps increasing? As long as there are some non-full blocks, TXs will cost 0.0002, but when there will be a constant queue in the mempool, the TX costs will raise very quickly to a level that will make bitcoin interesting only for settlements. It's not just a mining factor.
Moderators can apply censorship as long as they want, but people are not stupid and the market shows it. Times are mature for a full grow of bitcoin adoption, and the price keeps plummeting for the bitcoin block size debate. Just read http://reddit.com/r/btc to see how things really are. Price will keep going down until a few people will control bitcoin (core).
firstly there is no such thing as quasi centralised... its either centralised (one point of failure) or decentralised.
The same is valid also for bitcoin with larger blocks. And still there is no evidence that larger blocks lead to centralization.
2M $ = for beneficence (cancer, sla, aids, handicap)
Heart diseases are the #1 cause of death, but medical research in this field is the less funded.
[...] pools operate in a similar fashion to a representative democracy for the miners, so there are thousands of miners represented by ten to twenty pools. In effect the pools act as a proxy for the miners and the miners are a proxy for the economic majority, since the miners are incentivized not to go against the economic majority. This makes consensus an emergent phenomena which is best represented through proof of work[...]
This.
even though its not 0.01 cent, its still nothing compared to what you would pay for western union.
You are a blind fool. Soon transactions will cost several dollars if blocks are just 1 MB.
During all the life of bitcoin the number of transactions kept increasing everyday. In these days they are reaching new records. We are experiencing many full blocks. The mempool is becoming huge. Transactions are taking more and more time to be confirmed. To make things worse, bitcoin value is increasing and attracting even more users.
I may agree that sidechains and lightning networks could be good solutions for the small transactions or everyday use, but they don't exist now and who knows when they will be ready.
In one of the next days, if bitcoin news will appear on a major site it will be a complete wreck.
The attempt by Blockstream to take the whole market of the microtransactions is mining the future of bitcoin. I am worried and scared of this.
1 MB block limit is totally absurd and inadequate and even a fool can realize it.
I may agree that sidechains and lightning networks could be good solutions for the small transactions or everyday use, but they don't exist now and who knows when they will be ready.
In one of the next days, if bitcoin news will appear on a major site it will be a complete wreck.
The attempt by Blockstream to take the whole market of the microtransactions is mining the future of bitcoin. I am worried and scared of this.
1 MB block limit is totally absurd and inadequate and even a fool can realize it.
Re: Mike Hearn response to "An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community"
A Proposal for the Consensus Building Process:
1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.
2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.
3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.
4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.
5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.
Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?
A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.
1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.
2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.
3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.
4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.
5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.
Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?
A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.
What if someone implements a BIP that "establishes that consensus should be aknowledged with only 100 out of 1000 blocks", and this BIP gets >90% of the last blocks mined? :-)
if bitcoin reaches 1$ its going to 0$ in the following 3 seconds.
This is true: if Bitcoin has still any usability, 21M of bitcoins are a too small number to keep the value to $1. There are too many people that would buy huge quantities... therefore the only reason that would make its value fall so low is that it doesn't work (hackable? unsafe? Transaction takes too long to be confirmed because blocks are still only 1M? And so on..). At this point it loses all the value so most likely it's 0.