Create account

2111d
People need to see this. It has actually changed my mind. Maybe bitcoin unlimited implementation will resolve this somehow but even then... exchanges and market valuation...
5 / 23 11
14,869
Barricade
replied 2111d
What a mess... ABC wants CTOR without proving how it improves perfomance. SV wants 128 MB without solving first bottlenecks. Yes, BU/XT is the way to go.
5
1,092
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 2110d
There are no bottle necks 128MB. DASH tested 400MB blocks without a problem. Plus miners control how large blocks are. This is just an upper limit.
3
546
Rawdeal
replied 2110d
No bottle necks? Did you miss the whole stress test?
4
1,234
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 2110d
And did the network stop working? No. Just some bugs that can easily be fixed. Nothing worth splitting the network over.
3
1,780
replied 2110d
A) don't think we need a cap at all B) I don't think we need any more stress tests any time soon. Let the market figure it out via competing software. Not decide it via central...
4
White men are people too
replied 2083d
Is it not natural to think that "no cap" is a future goal, but that it makes sense to approach it by first using a "silly high" cap? Compare 128 to 1 (think BTC). Less risk that way
2
1,780
replied 2083d
Yeah that's sort of how I think about it and how I like to explain it to people.
Rawdeal
replied 2105d
What's the point of a cap if the software is self limiting... fix the bottlenecks and see what it can do!
2
546
replied 2110d
planning, which is ultimately what ABC and nChain are guilty of, even if it is out of good intentions.
2
replied 2110d
Yeah, and remember, it's just a cap. If we really believe in the incentive structures in place, then we should trust miners to handle big blocks WHEN they need it. Which is why I ...
1
replied 2110d
Can you provide a link to this dash testing? Can you provide a link to any dash testing? Thanks.
2
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 2110d
google.com, dash 400 mb blocks, 1 year ago.
replied 2110d
I did google it. Dash hasn't tested 400mb. They are *aiming for 400mb*. Their stress test accomplished 500K+ on-chain transactions.
5
1,092
Barricade
replied 2110d
Do you think miners will risk getting orphaned with such big blocks? Block propagation could be improved a lot. Also I don't know if mempool acceptance is just an ABC issue...
2
Bitcoin Faucet
replied 2110d
Miners can increase block size at a rate they are comfortable with. The first version of bitcoin did not have a blocksize limit.
3
546
replied 2086d
There were 2 bottlenecks . I believe one was fixed and there is another one at 100 MB's. Can't they just fix the bottleneck after they go to 128MB's?
1
bchbtch
replied 2111d
You don't need to solve bottlenecks to increase the cap. Miners will use the software as they see fit, and the released client doesn't need to be optimized to match the cap.
2
Barricade
replied 2110d
You're right, 128 MB blocks are propaganda because no one is gonna mine such a big block anytime soon.
3
replied 2110d
Focusing time and energy on anything but the bottleneck is exactly how many people waste their lifetime. Focusing on minor issues ignoring the real threats to their existence.
4
5,567
White men are people too
replied 2109d
...client, but ignored by SV. Soon enough T1 will be in a transaction in SV chain too. Unlimited will then see this transaction as repeated and therefore illegal, and must reject it.
3
White men are people too
replied 2109d
If all this is true, I suppose bitcoin unlimited will also start filtering blocks. Suppose there is a transaction T1 which arrives at the ABC chain, gets picked up by the unlimited...
2
anarchovegan
replied 2085d
30:28

30:28
anarchovegan
replied 2086d
#NoConsensus = #TheEndofBCH =
THE END OF MEMO.


About Privacy Terms Stats