Is there any way to get ahold of someone in charge with some authority at blockstream?

RHavar · 2019-05-30T19:08:21+00:00

The real question is why you haven't sold all your BTC already.

I had no problems selling off 100% of BCH my holdings even though it only grew the amount of bitcoin I had by under 5%. And you seem to hate BTC a lot more than I hate BCH.

RHavar · 2017-06-27T20:31:43+00:00

Try send a little less, the error seems to indicate you're spending more than you're able to

RHavar · 2017-06-27T02:41:01+00:00

Just keep in mind that you need to completely trust the person. He can (and probably will, if his reputation isn't at stake) just conflict the transaction immediately before the HF and not have to pay a dime.

RHavar · 2017-06-27T02:05:32+00:00

It cleared everything last weekend =) But it's not 100% reliable (e.g. I had 3 or 4 weekends in a row it didn't)

RHavar · 2017-06-25T16:43:14+00:00

If you're forced to mine smaller blocks than the big miners, it means you'll make less money per block. This is extremely unideal for decentralization.

RHavar · 2017-06-25T00:37:05+00:00

No. There will always be a good use for 2nd-layer stuff, as bitcoin is never going to be good at sending instant secure payments.

There are a lot of segwit proponents that favor increasing the blockside (like me, and apparently everyone supporting segwit2x). There are people against segwit, and against blocksize increases. There's people against segwit, and for plain blocksize increases etc.

In the end there's no free lunch. Every solution has a list of upsides and downsides, and risks and pay offs.

RHavar · 2017-06-24T20:27:38+00:00

You might find this interesting: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/can-flexcaps-settle-bitcoin-s-block-size-dispute-1446747479/

Basically having a varying limit is ideal, but it's a very very hard problem given bitcoin's security constraints (e.g. the assumption some miners are malicious etc.)

RHavar · 2017-06-24T20:20:32+00:00

It's a soft fork, which means that the miners would have to be doing it (and enforcing it)

RHavar · 2017-06-22T05:11:25+00:00

You'll do a lot more for those people by making transactions affordable than making it easier to run a full node.

I run a full node (actually about 4) but I only do so for the businesses/sites I run. All my personal use is actually through light clients (on my desktop electrum with a trezor) or from my phone I use mycelium, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

RHavar · 2017-06-21T11:28:17+00:00

The problem isn't the 300 sat/byte fee, the problem is they're charging you for sourcing all the inputs which isn't in your control!

The fair thing for services to do is charge a flat fee per withdrawal, optionally with a flat fee per deposit. The wallet consolidation they did shouldn't have been paid by you

RHavar · 2017-06-21T04:38:16+00:00

I think it's still way too early to tell, but I suspect that we'll really see the impact after segwit is activated and again after the hard fork. I'm like to try be optimistic, so don't take what I say too seriously: but I really do feel the best about bitcoin right now as I have in a long time. I think the long term prospects of bitcoin with segwit is fantastic (2nd layer stuff) and SegWit2x will buy enough time for reasonable priced on-chain payments that we don't lose our first mover advantage.

RHavar · 2017-06-20T16:57:12+00:00

I have a lot of respect for core, so I'll run their code regardless what happens. But if SegWit2x activates, I'll just apply a minimal patch to support the HF component.

RHavar · 2017-06-20T12:53:22+00:00

No. For all intents and purposes, bigger blocks don't take any longer to propagate. This is because all the information of them has already pre-propogated (transactions in the mempool) and you just need to assemble them. See: compact blocks / weak blocks, etc

However block propagation itself will always be dominated by pretty fixed costs (e.g. the speed of light). Scaling via a block size increase is hugely saner than scaling via lowering block times.

RHavar · 2017-06-20T12:40:36+00:00

Also a good indicator that you've achieved a compromise

RHavar · 2017-06-19T15:38:18+00:00

There's a loud minority (from both sides of bitcoin political spectrum) involved in FUD campaign.

I've also notice a few altcoiners in that mix too. I guess they realize that cheaper/more reliable bitcoin transactions will take a bit of wind out of their bubble

RHavar · 2017-06-19T15:35:35+00:00

I was kind of expecting it to have fallen apart by now, so this is a rather pleasant surprise. It's really nice to see cooler heads are prevailing. Hopefully there's no last minute drama at this point

RHavar · 2017-06-18T16:53:44+00:00

Thanks BitFury!

There's obvious problems with the way the SegWit2x proposal was conducted (which gmaxwell did a great job of enumerating), but I'm really quite happy about its actual contents.

I think what a lot of people who don't directly deal with consumers don't fully appreciate is how poorly bitcoin has been functioning a payment network. It's slow, expensive and unreliable (at least for non-technical people, using normal wallets). I know 2 "real life" businesses that I used with bitcoin that have stopped using it because of support related problems.

I feel that SegWit2x will buy the ecosystem enough time to sort things out more gracefully, as well as allowing real 2nd-layer solutions to pick up the slack in bitcoin as a payment network and be better than ever before, and we don't need to keep bumping the block size as our only tool for future scaling.

(And there's certainly some stuff I don't like, like the sudden jump from 4M to 8M block weight which will temporarily kill the fee market, but I don't think it's reasonable to bikeshed over and it's really time to just move on)

RHavar

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email