Bitcoin.com Buy BTC & BCH News, prices, mining & wallet

Mike Hearn's inconsistencies with respect to block size

From his "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" post:
"The reason the true limit seems to be 700 kilobytes instead of the theoretical 1000 is that sometimes miners produce blocks smaller than allowed and even empty blocks, despite that there are lots of transactions waiting to confirm — this seems to be most frequently caused by interference from the Chinese “Great Firewall” censorship system. More on that in a second."
"Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners, just two of whom control more than 50% of the hash power. At a recent conference over 95% of hashing power was controlled by a handful of guys sitting on a single stage. The miners are not allowing the block chain to grow."
"And the final reason is that the Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide."
"Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet"
So, established by Mike: Chinese miners are currently the largest players, at least 50% of the mining power and they have limited bandwidth which is barely able to operate at current capacity. What is his solution?:
"In August 2015 it became clear that due to severe mismanagement, the “Bitcoin Core” project that maintains the program that runs the peer-to-peer network wasn’t going to release a version that raised the block size limit. The reasons for this are complicated and discussed below. But obviously, the community needed the ability to keep adding new users. So some long-term developers (including me) got together and developed the necessary code to raise the limit. That code was called BIP 101 and we released it in a modified version of the software that we branded Bitcoin XT."
BIP101: "The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC"
So his solution, increase capacity to 8MB 6 days ago. So what are we to assume would have happened then? I don't claim to be smart enough to accurately predict the result but I'm pretty sure based on the assumptions Mike laid out in his own words this would impact most of bitcoin's mining capacity. Does this seem like a prudent plan to you?
I found a ton of other amazing misrepresentations, like this one:
"it’s now common to be asked to pay more to miners than a credit card would charge". Common? Really? Perhaps if one is spending 1 BTC of collected dust, but that doesn't not seem like a common scenario.
There are plenty more misrepresentations but I'm trying to stay focused on the bandwidth issue, though this is the kicker to me:
"When parts of the community are viciously turning on the people that have introduced millions of users to the currency, you know things have got really crazy." Isn't that just exactly what Mike Hearn did with this medium post? Not only did he turn on the people who managed to bootstrap, maintain and nurture this system, he turned on all of the XT supporters and all investors.
Also notice the failure to mention he's now an R3 employee working on a competing blockchain? Perhaps if he really cared about the people he worked with and the community he represented, that he claims he was trying to help with XT, in the interest of fairness and knowing the broader public eye would be on this post due to the NYT article, he would have disclosed that. He should have.
IMO, all indicators are that this was simply a bitcoin hit piece in an attempt to benefit his personal stock and new employer.
So to my point, if 1 of the 2 leaders of the XT movement would do such a thing and was so influential as to precipitate this major rift, should we perhaps use more caution before trusting successors with easy solutions?
I hope this post serves to reopen the questions regarding bandwidth which seem to not be adequately discussed (thanks Mike_Hearn for providing the valuable information), and to hopefully restore some faith in the more mature and cautious development and process of the core developers vs. the reactive and emotional responses of their detractors. Note, I believe what Theymos did with censorship was wrong and completely antithetical to the spirit of bitcoin, but we need to be collectively cautious rather than assume the logical response is to blindly follow a different path and a new charismatic leader. Especially when that path seems to be clearly dangerous based on the prior leader's own words.
submitted by jimmajamma to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn's inconsistencies with respect to block size

From his "The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" post:
"The reason the true limit seems to be 700 kilobytes instead of the theoretical 1000 is that sometimes miners produce blocks smaller than allowed and even empty blocks, despite that there are lots of transactions waiting to confirm — this seems to be most frequently caused by interference from the Chinese “Great Firewall” censorship system. More on that in a second."
"Because the block chain is controlled by Chinese miners, just two of whom control more than 50% of the hash power. At a recent conference over 95% of hashing power was controlled by a handful of guys sitting on a single stage. The miners are not allowing the block chain to grow."
"And the final reason is that the Chinese internet is so broken by their government’s firewall that moving data across the border barely works at all, with speeds routinely worse than what mobile phones provide."
"Right now, the Chinese miners are able to — just about — maintain their connection to the global internet"
So, established by Mike: Chinese miners are currently the largest players, at least 50% of the mining power and they have limited bandwidth which is barely able to operate at current capacity. What is his solution?:
"In August 2015 it became clear that due to severe mismanagement, the “Bitcoin Core” project that maintains the program that runs the peer-to-peer network wasn’t going to release a version that raised the block size limit. The reasons for this are complicated and discussed below. But obviously, the community needed the ability to keep adding new users. So some long-term developers (including me) got together and developed the necessary code to raise the limit. That code was called BIP 101 and we released it in a modified version of the software that we branded Bitcoin XT."
BIP101: "The maximum size shall be 8,000,000 bytes at a timestamp of 2016-01-11 00:00:00 UTC"
So his solution, increase capacity to 8MB 6 days ago. So what are we to assume would have happened then? I don't claim to be smart enough to accurately predict the result but I'm pretty sure based on the assumptions Mike laid out in his own words this would impact most of bitcoin's mining capacity. Does this seem like a prudent plan to you?
I found a ton of other amazing misrepresentations, like this one:
"it’s now common to be asked to pay more to miners than a credit card would charge". Common? Really? Perhaps if one is spending 1 BTC of collected dust, but that doesn't not seem like a common scenario.
There are plenty more misrepresentations but I'm trying to stay focused on the bandwidth issue, though this is the kicker to me:
"When parts of the community are viciously turning on the people that have introduced millions of users to the currency, you know things have got really crazy." Isn't that just exactly what Mike Hearn did with this medium post? Not only did he turn on the people who managed to bootstrap, maintain and nurture this system, he turned on all of the XT supporters and all investors.
Also notice the failure to mention he's now an R3 employee working on a competing blockchain? Perhaps if he really cared about the people he worked with and the community he represented, that he claims he was trying to help with XT, in the interest of fairness and knowing the broader public eye would be on this post due to the NYT article, he would have disclosed that. He should have.
IMO, all indicators are that this was simply a bitcoin hit piece in an attempt to benefit his personal stock and new employer.
So to my point, if 1 of the 2 leaders of the XT movement would do such a thing and was so influential as to precipitate this major rift, should we perhaps use more caution before trusting successors with easy solutions?
I hope this post serves to reopen the questions regarding bandwidth which seem to not be adequately discussed (thanks Mike_Hearn for providing the valuable information), and to hopefully restore some faith in the more mature and cautious development and process of the core developers vs. the reactive and emotional responses of their detractors. Note, I believe what Theymos did with censorship was wrong and completely antithetical to the spirit of bitcoin, but we need to be collectively cautious rather than assume the logical response is to blindly follow a different path and a new charismatic leader. Especially when that path seems to be clearly dangerous based on the prior leader's own words.
submitted by jimmajamma to btc [link] [comments]

BITCOIN/BTC REVOLUTION - IT'S TIME TO JOIN!!! Bip Coin Coin ! How to Store Bitcoin Securely BITCOIN Investing without Buying COINS!  Stock Market ... Bitcoin Trading for Beginners (A Guide in Plain English ...

BIP 101, which is implemented in Bitcoin XT, requires 750 of the last 1000 blocks to be mined by a BIP 101 node before activating a block size limit increase, but Back seems intent on gaining more ... In June 2015, Gavin Andresen, who became chief developer of Bitcoin after Satoshi’s disappearance, released the famous Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 101 (BIP 101). He suggested to increase the blocksize limit to 8 MB. After that, it should double every two years. In GDP 101, he also explained why the increase in the block size would not result in centralisation by data centres. However, he ... Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. I mentioned Brian because I think it's highly irresponsible for the CEO of a major Bitcoin company to be making declarations about BIP 101, about XT, etc. without providing the requisite justification (and as I mentioned, BitFury has done just that in a highly technical document -- if BitFury is responsible enough to devote resources to understanding the situation properly, then I'd expect ... Bitcoin historical price Price information and block explorers. In the beginning of the 20th century, computers were only a thought experiment, but the 1st mechanic calculators were starting to be adapted. The ideas about how to create a computer existed, but the technique to do it was not available. Lee De Forrest invented the radio-tube in 1906. At first it was only used in radios, later on ...

[index] [24735] [42231] [50885] [20149] [17212] [139] [16074] [30572] [33285] [8074]

BITCOIN/BTC REVOLUTION - IT'S TIME TO JOIN!!!

Follow my progress as I dive head first into investing, while trying not to lose it all!! Amazon Giveaway Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX10a-ZoCJs ... The increasingly popular digital currency, Bitcoin, has made its debut on a major US exchange. On Monday, futures trading of the virtual money started in the Chicago Board of Exchange. Interest ... 948 101. Don't like this video? Sign in to make your opinion count. ... Bitcoin zu 95% bei 100.000 EUR in 2020 (Stock to Flow Ratio) - Duration: 11:05. Dr. Julian Hosp ... Skip navigation Sign in. Search coinbase verkauft eure daten!!! fake markets werden kreiert!!! die druckerpressen go like brrrrrrrr!!! bip der usa auf rekordtief!!! nasdaq auf all time high...

#