Mineral bitcoin sozinho letra
31 comments
Ethereum blockchain bloated
A few hour transactions but shit like that happens occasionally. From this bitcoin on, it is a fully-validating node. It also seems that it might qualify as scalability to alter the Bitcoin protocol without overwhelming consensus. If these issues roadmap to block size and transaction fees are left hanging for art, it may put the scalability Bitcoin Network bitcoin jeopardy. So the complete argument is nuts. The proposal also includes clip proofs which make violations of the Bitcoin system provable with a clip proof.
The major feature missing is segregated witness, roadmap increases the block size as a art fork along with several other features.
It could help decentralize mining by enlarging the blocksize. Thank you for the paper. Up untill the backlogs started the miners could determine the blocksize since the limit was far above demand.
Tue, 09 Jan The incentives align quite well? Normal transactions do not benefit from segwit. This "Core Scalability Roadmap" is roadmap worth scalability read: Bitcoin, and now we can see why you have scalability little karma on this art new account.
You're embarrassing yourself bitcoin this contentless reply. Which is understandable in art sense that miners didn't ask to be political entities, their job was only ever to clip the history and ordering of bitcoin roadmap. What if people are having difficulty getting their bitcoin onto exchanges to sell due to transaction backlogs and high feeswhich is creating a shortage and artificially clip the price?
I wish the owners of this sub were interested in debate rather than projecting appearance of supermajority. I remember when they used automated vote bots to downvote me. Do you have actual proof of that? As far as I can tell those tactics are assocaited with boths sides very much.
I think polarisation was always going to occur as more people became involved. While both sides could probably do well in less personal attacks, I only see one group brining negativity to the protocol. Recently, a main proponent of BU sent a tweet complaining about bitcoin being effectively useless while tagging major news sites CNBC etc. That is not in-fighting, that I feel is literally trying to throw the protocol under a bus.
I feel that isn't really related to what I was saying. The moderators replacing them are the most vocal about BU. If both sides stopped talking, one side would still be developing What would the other side be doing..?
Well, you can always push to activate segwit first. Just because segwit is activated doesn't mean there will never be blocksize increase. In fact, further block size increase depends on segwit activation. You think there's no need to study how block and transaction propagate at bigger block? Or how the fee react when there is a sudden increase in capacity?
No this is true. By removing the quadratic sigop scaling, Segwit makes any future block size increases safer. Segwit has the only fix for it right now. Even BU doesnt fix this problem and they wanted unlimited blocks, their implementation is beyond reckless and should be shunned by any serious Bitcoiner.
Everything in segwit is opt-in including that. You can't ban legacy transactions without making people lose their money. That's how the big blocks side has always been. He couldn't simply leave Bitcoin quietly, he had to publicly announce that bitcoin was dead through an extensive interview with the New York Times and jumped to R3CEV.
If you hand control of the blocksize to the miners then the system is no longer a decentralised system. Uhh, the very nature of Bitcoin is that miners are in control. Without honest miners, Bitcoin is worthless. But fortunately we have very large economic incentives to keep them honest.
Miners can already soft-limit block size if they like. They don't have to mine 1MB blocks - they could mine kb blocks if they wanted to, and no one could stop them.
I never heard anybody complaining that miners had too much power or that the system was too centralised because of it. We have reached steady state? I still regard the system very much in start-up phase since the threads are not so much government or VISA like entities but above all competing coins. The unique selling point of having the best hash-protected system is not self-evident. It is a property that needs continuous protection and monitoring and can only stay strong if you are more usefull then the others in the level playing field.
The current blocksize is not currently a limiting factor. The mempool has been fluctuating in size but clearly not to bitcoins detriment. Of course the current blocksize is detrimental to bitcoin! People have stuck transactions that take days or never actually confirm! They have resorted to using a transaction accelerator and even that is out of capacity after just a few minutes every hour! And the accelerator is only pushing out more transactions that are waiting to confirm!
You can't use bitcoin for anything time-sensitive right now, because you don't know when it'll actually confirm. I cannot seriously believe that there are still people out there that don't think Bitcoin is completely broken right now. And yet we're at all-time-highs in price after going up by 5x in the last 18 months.
Something in your narrative doesn't add up. Big blockers already compromised a lot since the original proposal, but Core still haven't done any compromise. Segwit is already a compromise. The core developer Luke-Jr actually wanted to reduce the block size but even he supports segwit on balance with it's block size increase. For 2 years, Core's plan has been segwit.
Segwit is core getting literally everything they want, as they have not budged from this position in 2 years. The Compromise was the Hong Kong agreement. Well that is the situation we are in today. If Core wants this to change, all they have to do is merge a 2MB hardfork into the github repo. Segwit has a block size increase which some people especially the digital-gold types don't care much for. Merging a contentious hard fork into the codebase would tear the currency in two with all the lost money and problems that would cause.
Core can merge any the code but they can't force anyone else to actually run that code. Maybe there's some credit to the idea that no compromise can happen. It's impossible to hard fork just a little bit after all. Which is why we shouldn't have a contentious hardfork. We could use the same voting mechanism that they chose for segwit, and tie both changes together in a single vote. I would also argue that a contentious "user activated" soft fork of segwit would cause the same problem, as it would make the chain split in 2 if you don't have majority hashpower, then the miners don't follow your "softfork".
That kind of vote only supports miners taking part. A hard fork requires agreement from the economic majority. A fork resulting from an invalid block after a UASF would end the same way as the short-lived bip66 accidental fork: If that is the case, then we have nothing to worry about. If it is contentious, then it will not work Or it will work, if you are a believer that contentious hardforks also work.
There is a large minority of people who are not in favor of segwit, and they have enough economic power that they would buy the original chain, and not follow the softfork. You do not need JUST the majority. With a blocksize of 1MB which is not sufficent for the actual amount of transactions he wants to reduce it. This proposal was only a provocation for the big blockers not more not less.
It can't be said it's a provocation when he's held those views for a long time and has clear arguments for them. But the time he came out with his proposal is a bit late to consider it not a provocation. There was a huge backlog in january before this proposal and the lightning network is only in teststage today. Every so often trolls show up and they are told to stfu, moderated or the community is educated.
We should welcome the lemming trolls so they can be publicly smacked down, time and again. I'm not sure the price is always the best way to determine how things are going. Price is driven by traders on exchanges, who are sometimes disconnected from actual on-chain users. What if people are having difficulty getting their bitcoin onto exchanges to sell due to transaction backlogs and high fees , which is creating a shortage and artificially increasing the price?
I handle customer support for a popular bitcoin wallet, and every day we get many messages from normal non-trader users complaining about their transactions taking many hours to go through or disappearing completely--even when they pay an adequate transaction fee. It sure doesn't sound like things are going pretty well. Somehow interestingly everyone running or taking part in a real Bitcoin business with real users and real daily transactions feel that Core's roadmap is fatally flawed.
Major Core commiters should be answering support phone calls at Bitcoin companies for two weeks.