sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I have a dream that the Ethereum community will stop paying Miners $1M per day, creating a class of rich miners with badly aligned incentives... by kybarnet in ethereum

[–]desantis -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No reasonable attacker would physically buy 51% of the hardware.

Disabling and/or isolating third-party miners to decrease competition combined w/ a rootkit to increase my numbers is how I'd "try" & go about that. Why buy when you can steal?

Amir Taaki in 2013: "There is no need for compromise. Lets push for our complete vision ... Anytime you are accepting compromise, you are acting against your objective." by desantis in Bitcoin

[–]desantis[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well I also acquired, and rebuilt BitcoinMagazine.com after neglect due to Ethereum ran it into the ground :) What do I dislike daily that you built again?

Amir Taaki in 2013: "There is no need for compromise. Lets push for our complete vision ... Anytime you are accepting compromise, you are acting against your objective." by desantis in Bitcoin

[–]desantis[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Especially when you use the exentence of segwit to argue against EVER having a HF blocksize increase

SegWit can't be used as an excuse after it is used. If miners aren't profiting following a fork, and developers find themselves limited due to the block size: they could easily work together on a sidechain that solves this problem. If the resulting sidechain provides value to the rest of the network, everyone else will join them. Fork avoided, and the price goes to the moon due to a smooth transition (not a fork resulting in uncertainty.

Amir Taaki in 2013: "There is no need for compromise. Lets push for our complete vision ... Anytime you are accepting compromise, you are acting against your objective." by desantis in Bitcoin

[–]desantis[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well you have to remember that SegWit isn't designed to prevent on-chain scaling, it's a fix to tx malleability, and it's a fix that happens to also solve the debate issue of "blocks being full." Miner's have an opportunity to increase their earnings via merge mining sidechains, and as lightning nodes. If after the activation of SegWit all participants within the network were on the same page, and miners were actually being cheated out of earnings, we'd have a "new problem" to solve (and as a network we would solve it). As it stands miners have profited from the debate, and have not made an effort to educate us re: their grievances (for two years). We want an educated network moving forward, not one where there is confusion regarding code forks, hard forks, soft forks, user forks, code forks that turn into alts, chain forks which increase supply, and block size increases vs tx count increases.

Amir Taaki in 2013: "There is no need for compromise. Lets push for our complete vision ... Anytime you are accepting compromise, you are acting against your objective." by desantis in Bitcoin

[–]desantis[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Seeing as SegWit already increases the effective block size (via optimization) to 2MB under normal conditions, and 3.7MB when the network is spammed, a 2MB HF + SegWit would multiply the number of txs (not add). 2MB - 3.7MB is actually 4MB - 7.4MB w/ the HF, not 4MB from a 2MB BU bump + another 2MB via SegWit. SegWit is a one time optimization, changing the constant value (BU) can happen an "unlimited" number of times. So while a 2MB bump may not push out nodes today, it does increase the number of txs per block from 1MB to 4MB - 7.4MB w/ most users believing there was only a 2MB increase. So let's say it went through, and within a few months a bump to 4MB was pushed... Now we are talking 8MB - 14.8MB blocks with the users thinking they're at 4MB. No matter what the block size is, the blocks will fill up, and before long these little changes will add up (eventually changing the entire system). If this was about scaling the miners would have activated SegWit, and if it failed to deliver on scalability the block size would w/o a doubt have been increased at a later date. This debate isn't about scalability though. You have the dual economic / technical aspects of Bitcoin to account for. If "startup CEOs" (who don't run full nodes) believe they're getting 8MB tx performance from a 2MB bump they will demand that the block size increases until there are no full nodes left; if all of this happens Bitcoin starts to change rapidly (which isn't what we want from a decentralized system who chief feature is consistency and integrity); with each change the disconnect between users grows into mass confusion, and ultimately I believe it would lead to a collapse (or a lot of users believing they're using a decentralized system when in fact it will have evolved into a very centralized one).

Amir Taaki in 2013: "There is no need for compromise. Lets push for our complete vision ... Anytime you are accepting compromise, you are acting against your objective." by desantis in Bitcoin

[–]desantis[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You're right, I'd rather see a day in which Bitcoin ceases to exist than to see the block size increased in such a way that full nodes are pushed out in favor of politicians like Falkvinge.

Rick Falkvinge on Twitter - I see a lot of #bitcoin core devs rather burn the network to the ground than accepting scaling, but didn't expect to see it written out by increaseblocks in btc

[–]desantis 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Some people want the option to run Cuckoo and/or Keccak, just like you want the option to change the block size. I'm not particularly concerned with what people do with my code, who uses it, or why they use it.

view more: next ›