131–140 of 253 posts
I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?
So bitcoin went up because they were going to fork, and now it's going up again because they will not? k Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.
There were many people that sold off a lot of their altcoins for bitcoin, so that they could be positioned for the fork coins. They are buying their altcoins again.
There are many people that can't make any decision in the face of uncertainty, and have shaky confidence in bitcoin to begin with, now the biggest uncertainty is gone and they are able to buy now that this is out the way.
I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?
The value of full nodes is widely understood by bitcoin contributors [0][1][2]. Increasing the block size directly increases the amount of resources required to run a full node. Increased bandwidth requirements is especially a problem.
It is up to the candidate (s2x), not the incumbent (core) to show that no, it won't be harder to run full nodes, or to show that you can have just as much security by running an SPV node. Because the candidate has failed to back up their proposal with evidence that security is not harmed, the proposal should not move forward.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/BitcoinBeginners/comments/3eq3y7/fu...
I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?
Segwit2X was never about a blocksize increase, it was meant to seize control from the Bitcoin Core developers and switch development from the original Bitcoin repo to the newly created Bitcoin1 repo controlled by Jeff Garzik. It was not open to the Core developers and incompetently run, it was built on an old version of the software and resulting bugs were disingenuously blamed on Core developers.
Had this been a success it would have signaled the transfer of control of Bitcoin from the many developers and contributors to corporate banking and wall street interests. it would have been the end of decentralized crypto network open to many and the start of a corporate controlled network open to only a few.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet I don't see people claiming it's the fault of C++ A major driving force behind the development of Rust is that exact claim.
I doubt software written in Rust has no bugs.
So bitcoin went up because they were going to fork, and now it's going up again because they will not? k Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.
Market fundamentals seem non existant here. At least a few years ago, when there were bad news the prices would reflect that. Now, it seems to go up anytime bitcoin is mentioned at all, regardless whether the market understands the implications or not.
As someone who was there and paid close attention, this is not true. E.g. silk road's closure didn't impact BTC for more than a few days, but everyone universally would've said it'd tank BTC's price.
I still don't really understand why people were so against a block size increase. I get that there are centralisation risks if the block size increases too much, but it doesn't really seem as though increasing to 2mb really make such a big difference? Am I missing something?
There are no real technical arguments against increasing to 2MB, only political. The main actors against a block size increase are Core developers who are also part of a company called Blockstream. Blockstream's business model is about selling side chains. But why use side chains if you can use on chain transactions instead? Well if you limit on chain scaling users would be forced on to your side chains... The moveme…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You haven't provided any good arguments for on chain scaling Multiple dollar fees doesn't require any more arguments. The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's lacking. > but the market is screaming "bitcoin is doing it right". Have you considered that it's driven by speculation instead of technical merit? When the blockchain becomes unusable due to high fees and congestio…
The pure speculators I know invest in smaller cap cryptocurrencies to maximize their gains. The only people I know invested in bitcoin are in because they believe in its long term value. Anyway at this point you're trying to predict the future and I'm sharing anecdotes so we're not getting anywhere, let's tackle your main point: > The lack of arguments against on chain scaling, backed by actual research, is what's la…
There is no credible research done, there are no numbers, yet even the smallest size increase is blocked.
It's also blocked by the same people who have previously supported even larger increases. What made them change their minds? Sure isn't any new research.
But the fundamental issue is that not everyone need to run a full node as long as you can connect to sufficiently many nodes yourself. There's simply no point in engaging in full node fetishism where everyone need to run one where the worst internet connection hamstrings the entire network. Most people run SPV wallets today anyway and the important nodes are the ones run by businesses and wallet services.
So bitcoin went up because they were going to fork, and now it's going up again because they will not? k Edit: Otoh, looks like it's seeing a bit of a drop now, but I doubt it will hit the pre-anticipation levels.
Market fundamentals seem non existant here. At least a few years ago, when there were bad news the prices would reflect that. Now, it seems to go up anytime bitcoin is mentioned at all, regardless whether the market understands the implications or not.
Even when the news were predictable or already known! Bitcoin has never been connected to any "market fundamentals", just hundreds of day traders trying to predict each others reaction to random scraps of news as they come by.