Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like ...
Jonathan Toomim: "At 32 MB, we can handle something like ...
PODCAST: Dev Jonathan Toomim Would Join BTC if They ...
Prepping for an Airdrop: Prominent BCH ... - The Bitcoin News
Xthinner Protocol Tested on BCH ... - Bitcoin Mine News
Bitcoin Cash Scaling Benchmarks, Brewdog, and Rising ...
If scaling improvements to the protocol concern you, you're in the wrong place
This is rbtc, the subreddit for people who wanted to scale and improve Bitcoin but were censored out of rbitcoin. Recently, a fair amount of noise has been generated from a few comments made by Jonathan Toomim regarding reducing the block interval. Reducing the block interval is something that I and many others have assumed would eventually happen. Like the block size limit, the block interval is not a sacred cow variable, but is instead a "safe enough for now" guess that Satoshi pulled out of his ass. A few things should be said about the block interval:
Can't do instant txns - It probably can't ever be reduced low enough to permit reliable "instant" transactions without a significant penalty to orphan rate, which would be bad.
Can be reduced without penalty - It definitely can be reduced by several factors of two, and maybe even by an entire order of magnitude, without any significant penalty to orphan rate.
Reducing block interval is a scaling improvement - Reducing the average block interval by half offers an equivalent scaling benefit to doubling the block size. Reducing it by an order of magnitude offers equivalent scaling benefit to increasing the block size limit by 10x. A 10x improvement in block interval would be the equivalent to increasing the current BSL to 320MB.
Reducing block interval is a usability improvement - while it is true that reducing block interval is unlikely to facilitate "instant" transactions at the register, it is also true that many other applications would see a usability improvement. An easy example is more quickly moving coins on and off exchanges. But every transaction would see a reduction in confirmation wait times, which is an unqualified win, even at the register. Every application that uses the blockchain would see a UX benefit, however marginal, because other things equal, faster is always better.
Past this, I want to point out that, at this moment, there is literally no plan at all to reduce block interval. None. All that's happened is just the beginning of some discussion. That's it. A few comments in a reddit sub. Nothing more. Folks, we have to be able discuss improvements without people freaking out at the mere hint of discussion.
WARNING: If you try to use the Lightning Network you are at extremely HIGH RISK of losing funds and is not recommended or safe to do at this time or for the foreseeable future (274 points, 168 comments)
The guy who won this week's MillionaireMakers drawing has received ~$55 in BCH and ~$30 in BTC. It will cost him less than $0.01 to move the BCH, but $6.16 (20%) in fees to move the BTC. (164 points, 100 comments)
Do you think Bitcoin needs to increase the block size? You're in luck! It already did: Bitcoin BCH. Avoid the upcoming controversial BTC block size debate by trading your broken Bitcoin BTC for upgraded Bitcoin BCH now. (209 points, 194 comments)
Master list of evidence regarding Bitcoin's hijacking and takeover by Blockstream (185 points, 113 comments)
PSA: BTC not working so great? Bitcoin upgraded in 2017. The upgraded Bitcoin is called BCH. There's still time to upgrade! (185 points, 192 comments)
This sub is the only sub in all of Reddit that allows truly uncensored discussion of BTC. If it turns out that most of that uncensored discussion is negative, DON'T BLAME US. (143 points, 205 comments)
211 points: fireduck's comment in John Mcafee on the run from IRS Tax Evasion charges, running 2020 Presidential Campaign from Venezuela in Exile
203 points: WalterRothbard's comment in I am a Bitcoin supporter and developer, and I'm starting to think that Bitcoin Cash could be better, but I have some concerns, is anyone willing to discuss them?
163 points: YourBodyIsBCHn's comment in I made this account specifically to tip in nsfw/gonewild subreddits
161 points: BeijingBitcoins's comment in Last night's BCH & BTC meetups in Tokyo were both at the same restaurant (Two Dogs). We joined forces for this group photo!
156 points: hawks5999's comment in You can’t make this stuff up. This is how BTC supporters actually think. From bitcoin: “What you can do to make BTC better: check twice if you really need to use it!” 🤦🏻♂️
155 points: lowstrife's comment in Steve Wozniak Sold His Bitcoin at Its Peak $20,000 Valuation
151 points: kdawgud's comment in The government is taking away basic freedoms we each deserve
147 points: m4ktub1st's comment in BCH suffered a 51% attack by colluding miners to re-org the chain in order to reverse transactions - why is nobody talking about this? Dangerous precident
147 points: todu's comment in Why I'm not a fan of the SV community: My recent bill for defending their frivolous lawsuit against open source software developers.
This post was inspired by the video “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on Craig Wright”. Oh, wait. Sorry. “Roger Ver’s Thoughts on 15th November Bitcoin Cash Upgrade”. Not sure how I mixed those two up. To get it out of the way first and foremost: I have nothing but utmost respect for Roger Ver. You have done more than just about anyone to bring Bitcoin to the world, and for that you will always have my eternal gratitude. While there are trolls on both sides, the crucifixion of Bitcoin Jesus in the past week has been disheartening to see. As a miner, I respect his decision to choose the roadmap that he desires. It is understandable that the Bitcoin (BCH) upgrade is causing a clash of personalities. However, what has been particularly frustrating is the lack of debate around the technical merits of Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin SV. The entire conversation has now revolved around Craig Wright the individual instead of what is best for Bitcoin Cash moving forward. Roger’s video did confirm something about difference of opinions between the Bitcoin ABC and Bitcoin SV camps. When Roger wasn’t talking about Craig Wright, he spent a portion of his video discussing how individuals should be free to trade drugs without the intervention of the state. He used this position to silently attack Craig Wright for allegedly wanting to control the free trade of individuals. This appears to confirm what Craig Wright has been saying: that DATASIGVERIFY can be used to enable widely illegal use-cases of transactions, and Roger’s support for the ABC roadmap stems from his personal belief that Bitcoin should enable all trade regardless of legal status across the globe. Speaking for myself, I think the drug war is immoral. I think human beings should be allowed to put anything they want in their own bodies as long as they are not harming others. I live in the United States and have personally seen the negative consequences of the drug war. This is a problem. The debasement of our currency and theft at the hands of central banks is a separate problem. Bitcoin was explicitly created to solve one of these problems. Roger says in his video that “cryptocurrencies” were created to enable trade free from government oversight. However, Satoshi Nakamoto never once said this about Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto was explicitly clear, however, that Bitcoin provided a solution to the debasement of currency.
“The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 02/11/2009
As we’ve written previously, the genesis block is often cited as a criticism of the 2008 bailout. However, the content of the article outlines that the bailout had already occurred. The article reveals that the government was poised to go a step further by buying up the toxic bank assets as part of a nationalization effort! In this scenario, according to the Times, "a 'bad bank' would be created to dispose of bad debts. The Treasury would take bad loans off the hands of troubled banks, perhaps swapping them for government bonds. The toxic assets, blamed for poisoning the financial system, would be parked in a state vehicle or 'bad bank' that would manage them and attempt to dispose of them while 'detoxifying' the main-stream banking system." The article outlines a much more nightmarish scenario than bank bailouts, one that would effectively remove any element of private enterprise from banking and use the State to seize the bank's assets. The United States is progressively getting to a point where cannabis can be freely traded and used without legal repercussion. As a citizen, each election has given me the opportunity to bring us closer to enacting that policy at a national level. However, I have never had the ability to have a direct impact on preventing the debasement of the United States dollar. The dollar is manipulated by a “private” organization that is accountable to no one, and on a yearly basis we are given arbitrary interest rates that I have no control over. The government uses its arbitrary control over the money supply to enable itself to spend trillions of dollars it doesn’t have on foreign wars. Roger Ver has passionately argued against this in multiple videos available on the internet. This is what Bitcoin promised to me when I first learned about it. This is what makes it important to me. When the Silk Road was shut down, Bitcoin was unaffected. Bitcoin, like the US dollar, was just a tool that was used for transactions. There is an inherent danger that governments, whether you like it or not, would use every tool at their disposal to shut down any system that enabled at a protocol level illegal trade. They, rightfully or wrongfully, did this with the Silk Road. Roger’s video seems to hint that he thinks Bitcoin Cash should be an experiment in playing chicken with governments across the world about our right to trade freely without State intervention. The problem is that this is a vast underestimation of just how quickly Bitcoin (BCH) could be shut down if the protocol itself was the tool being used for illegal trade instead of being the money exchanged on top of illegal trade platforms. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with Roger’s philosophy on what “cryptocurrencies” should be. However, I know what Bitcoin is. Bitcoin is simply hard, sound money. That is boring to a lot of those in the “cryptocurrency” space, but it is the essential tool that enables freedom for the globe. It allows those in Zimbabwe to have sound currency free from the 50 billion dollar bills handed out like candy by the government. It allows those of us in the US to be free from the arbitrary manipulation of the Fed. Hard, sound, unchanging money that can be used as peer to peer digital cash IS the killer use case of Bitcoin. That is why we are here building on top of Bitcoin Cash daily. When Roger and ABC want to play ball with governments across the globe and turn Bitcoin into something that puts it in legal jeopardy, it threatens the value of my bitcoins. Similar to the uncertainty we go through in the US every year as we await the arbitrary interest rates handed out by the Fed, we are now going to wait in limbo to see if governments will hold Bitcoin Cash miners responsible for enabling illegal trade at a protocol level. This is an insanely dangerous prospect to introduce to Bitcoin (BCH) so early in its lifespan. In one of Satoshi Nakamoto’s last public posts, he made it clear just how important it was to not kick the hornet’s nest that is government:
“It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 12/11/2010
Why anyone would want to put our opportunity of sound monetary policy in jeopardy to enable illegal trading at a base protocol level is beyond me. I respect anyone who has an anarcho-capitalist ideology. But, please don’t debase my currency by putting it at risk of legal intervention because you want to impose that ideology on the world. We took the time to set up a Q&A with the Bitcoin SV developers Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly. We posted on Reddit and gathered a ton of questions from the “community”. We received insanely intelligent, measured, and sane responses to all of the “attack vectors” proposed against increasing the block size and re-enabling old opcodes. Jonathon Toomim spent what must have been an hour or so asking 15+ questions in the Reddit thread of which we obtained answers to most. We have yet to see him respond to the technical answers given by the SV team. In Roger’s entire video today about the upcoming November fork, he didn’t once mention one reason why he disagrees with the SV roadmap. Instead, he has decided to go on Reddit and use the same tactics that were used by Core against Bitcoin Unlimited back in the day by framing the upcoming fork as “BCH vs BSV”, weeks before miners have had the ability to actually vote. What Bitcoin SV wants to accomplish is enable sound money for the globe. This is boring. This is not glamorous. It is, however, the greatest tool of freedom we can give the globe. We cannot let ideology or personalities change that goal. Ultimately, it won’t. We have been continual advocates for miners, the ones who spend 1000x more investing in the network than the /btc trolls, to decide the future of BCH. We look forward to seeing what they choose on Nov 15th. Roger mentions that it is our right to fork off and create our own chains. While that is okay to have as an opinion, Satoshi Nakamoto was explicit that we should be building one global chain. We adhere to the idea that miners should vote with their hashpower and determine the emergent chain after November 15th.
“It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU proof-of-worker proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.” – Satoshi Nakamoto 11/09/2008
Connor of The BCH Boys
Edit: A clarification. I used the phrase "Bitcoin is boring". I want to clarify that Bitcoin itself is capable of far more than we've ever thought possible, and this statement is one I will be elaborating on further in the future.
ETC should NOT be trying to distinguish itself with its own dev team, its own roadmap, etc
I am starting to see the ETC make the same mistake that caused Bitcoin Classic to lose support: focusing on differences other than the one which is the entire reason for the project's existence. People are largely drawn to ETC because they oppose the bailout. They believe ETC is Ethereum, and ETHF is a compromised imitation of the real Ethereum. The more other junk gets added to the ETC message, the lower the support will be. If ETC becomes the dominant chain, Vitalik and all the other prominent Ethereum folks will start treating ETC as the real fork. There is no need to create a new dev roadmap. Focusing on differences other than "ETC is the real chain, ETHF is the bailout chain" will just dilute the message. Once ETC becomes dominant, that is the time for the discussion in the entire Ethereum community to turn to any change in dev direction that the community wants. I personally am happy with Vitalik and the rest of the devs, except for their decision to support ETHF. If it becomes a matter of me having to support Vitalik and the old devs vs. some ragtag group of devs that come out of the woodwork now, my support for ETC gets significantly weaker. Again, this is a false choice because the ETHF devs will become ETC devs if ETC wins. Brief history lesson: Bitcoin Classic initially had a lot of support from miners, exchanges, and users for their Core idea: "upgrade the existing Bitcoin network to 2 MB blocks." However, things started going south when the Toomim brothers mistook support for Bitcoin Classic for support for their other ideas about Bitcoin governance and what the dev roadmap should be. Miners, businesses, and investors looked at Toomim's community voting site to determine the direction of the project, and looked at the people who were leading Classic in a different direction (especially Jonathan's brother, Michael Toomim), and said "No thanks. I like the 2 MB block size idea, but I don't want these people changing all this other stuff." The ETC community doesn't need to make investors choose between different dev teams. ETC can win this battle by focusing on the fundamental choice of "do you think the bailout chain should be the main chain, or the original chain?"
Fee revenue for miners is still extremely small compared to the 25 BTC block subsidy. The average amount of fees per block has been around 0.5 BTC for the last 20 blocks, or about 2% of total revenue. If block sizes increase, then miners can include a greater number of transactions, each of which has a smaller fee. Whether this results in greater or lesser total fees is purely speculative right now, and depends on a lot of different variables (like demand and the actual block size). I personally think that miners' best bet for achieving long-term survival is increasing the block size to about 10 MB over 4 years while keeping fee/kB about the same as it is now. I think that it will be easier to increase the volume of transactions 10x than it will be to increase the cost per transaction 10x. One of the issues with increasing the fee per tx is that doing so would make Bitcoin less attractive as a currency to investors, speculators, and users, which in turn would likely result in a decrease in the exchange rate. This would reduce the real value of the 25 BTC bitcoin block reward, which will have a much larger effect on miner revenue than direct fees, at least for the next 4.5 years. Thus, the idea of keeping block sizes small in order to maximize revenue through fees is likely to backfire.
I'm working on a project called Bitcoin Classic to bring democracy and Satoshi's original vision back to Bitcoin development.
~ jtoomim This guy understands how Bitcoin works. One big reason why Classic is going to innovate and grow is because it was founded by a miner who's also a coder: Jonathan Toomim jtoomim. If miners want to succeed long-term, they should listen to their fellow miner jtoomim who's also a coder - not to Adam Back. Adam Back doesn't understand how mining works, and his Lightning Network will steal miners' fees.
Since this is a pressing and prevalent issue, I thought maybe condensing the essential arguments into one mega thread is better than rehashing everything in new threads all the time. I chose a FAQ format for this so a certain statement can be answered. I don't want to re-post everything here so where appropriate I'm just going to use links. Disclaimer: This is biased towards big blocks (BIP 101 in particular) but still tries to mention the risks, worries and fears. I think this is fair because all other major bitcoin discussion places severely censor and discourage big block discussion.
What is the block size limit?
The block size limit was introduced by Satoshi back in 2010-07-15 as an anti-DoS measure (though this was not stated in the commit message, more info here). Ever since, it has never been touched because historically there was no need and raising the block size limit requires a hard fork. The block size directly limits the number of transactions in a block. Therefore, the capacity of Bitcoin is directly limited by the block size limit.
Why does a raise require a hard fork?
Because larger blocks are seen as invalid by old nodes, a block size increase would fork these nodes off the network. Therefore it is a hard fork. However, it is possible to downsize the block limit with a soft fork since smaller blocks would still be seen as valid from old nodes. It is considerably easier to roll out a soft fork. Therefore, it makes sense to roll out a more ambitious hard fork limit and downsize as needed with soft forks if problems arise.
What is the deal with soft and hard forks anyways?
It is the Chicken and Egg problem applied to future growth of Bitcoin. If companies do not see how Bitcoin can scale long term, they don't invest which in turn slows down adoption and development. See here and here.
Does an increase in block size limit mean that blocks immediately get larger to the point of the new block size limit?
No, blocks are as large as there is demand for transactions on the network. But one can assume that if the limit is lifted, more users and businesses will want to use the blockchain. This means that blocks will get bigger, but they will not automatically jump to the size of the block size limit. Increased usage of the blockchain also means increased adoption, investment and also price appreciation.
Which are the block size increase proposals?
See here. It should be noted that BIP 101 is the only proposal which has been implemented and is ready to go.
What is the long term vision of BIP 101?
BIP 101 tries to be as close to hardware limitations regarding bandwidth as possible so that nodes can continue running at normal home-user grade internet connections to keep the decentralized aspect of Bitcoin alive. It is believed that it is hard to increase the block size limit, so a long term increase is beneficial to planning and investment in the Bitcoin network. Go to this article for further reading and understand what is meant by "designing for success". BIP 101 vs actual transaction growth visualized: http://imgur.com/QoTEOO2 Note that the actual growth in BIP 101 is piece-wise linear and does not grow in steps as suggested in the picture.
What is up with the moderation and censorship on bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /bitcoin?
Proponents of a more conservative approach fear that a block size increase proposal that does not have "developeexpert consensus" should not be implemented via a majority hard fork. Therefore, discussion about the full node clients which implement BIP 101 is not allowed. Since the same individuals have major influence of all the three bitcoin websites (most notably theymos), discussion of Bitcoin XT is censored and/or discouraged on these websites.
Who governs or controls Bitcoin Core anyways? Who governs Bitcoin XT? What is Bitcoin governance?
Bitcoin Core is governed by a consensus mechanism. How it actually works is not clear. It seems that any major developer can "veto" a change. However, there is one head maintainer who pushes releases and otherwise organizes the development effort. It should be noted that the majority of the main contributors to Bitcoin Core are Blockstream employees. BitcoinXT follows a benevolent dictator model (as Bitcoin used to follow when Satoshi and later Gavin Andresen were the lead maintainers). It is a widespread believe that Bitcoin can be separated into protocol and full node development. This means that there can be multiple implementations of Bitcoin that all follow the same protocol and overall consensus mechanism. More reading here. By having multiple implementations of Bitcoin, single Bitcoin implementations can be run following a benevolent dictator model while protocol development would follow an overall consensus model (which is enforced by Bitcoin's fundamental design through full nodes and miners' hash power). It is still unclear how protocol changes should actually be governed in such a model. Bitcoin governance is a research topic and evolving.
What are the arguments against a significant block size increase and against BIP 101 in particular?
The main arguments against a significant increase are related to decentralization and therefore robustness against commercial interests and government regulation and intervention. More here (warning: biased Wiki article). Another main argument is that Bitcoin needs a fee market established by a low block size limit to support miners long term. There is significant evidence and game theory to doubt this claim, as can be seen here. Finally, block propagation and verification times increase with an increased block size. This in turn increases the orphan rate of miners which means reduced profit. Some believe that this is a disadvantage to small miners because they are not as well connected to other big miners. Also, there is currently a large miner centralization in China. Since most of these miners are behind the Great Firewall of China, their bandwidth to the rest of the world is limited. There is a fear that larger block propagation times favor Chinese miners as long as they have a mining majority. However, there are solutions in development that can drastically reduce block propagation times so this problem will be less of an issue long term.
What is up with the fee market and what is the Lightning Network (LN)?
Major Bitcoin Core developers believe that a fee market established by a low block size is needed for future security of the bitcoin network. While many believe fundamentally this is true, there is major dispute if a fee market needs to be forced by a low block size. One of the main LN developers thinks such a fee market through low block size is needed (read here). The Lightning Network is a non-bandwidth scaling solution. It uses payment channels that can be opened and closed using Bitcoin transactions that are settled on the blockchain. By routing transactions through many of these payment channels, in theory it is possible to support a lot more transactions while a user only needs very few payment channels and therefore rarely has to use (settle on) the actual blockchain. More info here.
How does LN and other non-bandwidth scaling solutions relate to Bitcoin Core and its long term scaling vision?
Bitcoin Core is headed towards a future where block sizes are kept low so that a fee market is established long term that secures miner incentives. The main scaling solution propagated by Core is LN and other solutions that only sometimes settle transactions on the main Bitcoin blockchain. Essentially, Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer for solutions that are built on top of Bitcoin's core technology. Many believe that long term this might be inevitable. But forcing this off-chain development already today seems counterproductive to Bitcoin's much needed growth and adoption phase before such solutions can thrive. It should also be noted that no major non-bandwidth scaling solution (such as LN) has been tested or even implemented. It is not even clear if such off-chain solutions are needed long term scaling solutions as it might be possible to scale Bitcoin itself to handle all needed transaction volumes. Some believe that the focus on a forced fee market by major Bitcoin Core developers represents a conflict of interest since their employer is interested in pushing off-chain scaling solutions such as LN (more reading here).
Are there solutions in development that show the block sizes as proposed via BIP 101 are viable and block propagation times in particular are low enough?
Bitcoin developement is centralized. But replacing core with classic goes from bad to worse.
Bitcoin implementations are centralized around Bitcoin-core. Bitcoin-core itself has a process for making improvements that tries to remain decentralized, but ultimately (as we've seen) a few people end up calling the shots, sometimes before the community has been invited to participate in any of the discussion. A list of people who contribute heavily to core:
Wladimir van der Laan
Among 24 others who have contributed. Then you have Bitcoin XT, and Bitcoin Classic, who have responded to the centralization by trying to overthrow bitcoin-core, overthrow the consensus rules, and replace Bitcoin with a new implementation, new leadership, and new management. A list of people behind Bitcoin Classic:
A noticeably shorter list. And, a lot of these people play a larger role as politicians than they do as actual developers, at least in the recent past. Throwing out the old to bring in the new is not decentralization. You are exchanging one centralized development team for a different, even more centralized development team. That's not decentralization! If you want decentralized code, decentralized development, and decentralized implementations, you need to have multiple implementations that can coexist. Bitcoin is not moving in a decentralized direction. We are seeing centralization happen right before our eyes: the large players in the ecosystem are making a power play to push the small players out. This will happen more times, and after a few iterations you'll have one giant the same way Microsoft took over desktop computing. If this is the direction that Bitcoin goes, you can count me out. Bitcoin has had a history of moving in a centralized direction and the recent evolutions are no improvement. If you want decentralization, please support actions that help decentralize the network, decentralize the political structures, and improve the situation. Bitcoin is in a bad place, but the active changes in the ecosystem are going from bad to worse. We are losing control of our cryptocurrency.
As a further benefit to hard forks, anybody who is ideologically opposed to the change can continue to use the old version successfully, as long as there are enough miners to keep the fork alive.
... but I can't see how that would work. Lets say there is a hard fork, and 5% of miners stubbornly refuse to go along with the 95% majority (for this thought experiment, it doesn't matter if the old rules or new rules 'win'). Lets further imagine that some exchange decides to support that 5% and lets people trade coins from that fork (one of the small altcoin exchanges would definitely do this if they think they can make a profit). Now, lets say I've got a lot of pre-fork bitcoin; they're valid on both sides of the fork. I support the 95% chain (because I'm not insane), but I'm happy to take people's money if they're stupid enough to give it to me. So, I do the following: 1) Create a send-to-self transaction on the 95% fork that is ONLY valid on the 95% fork (maybe I CoinJoin with a post-fork coinbase transaction, or just move my coins into then out of an exchange's very active hot wallet so I get coins with a long transaction history on the 95% side of the fork). 2) Transfer those same coins to the 5% exchange and sell them for whatever price I can get (I don't care how low, it is free money to me-- I will still own the coins on the 95% fork). I have to do step (1) to prevent the exchange from taking the transfer-to-exchange transaction and replaying it on the 95% chain. I don't see any way of preventing EVERYBODY who has coins on the 95% side of the fork from doing that. The result would be a huge free-fall in price as I, and everybody else, rushes to get some free money from anybody willing to pay us to remain idealogically pure. Does anybody think something else would happen, and do you think that ANYBODY would stick to the 5% fork in the face of enormously long transaction confirmation times (~3 hours), a huge transaction backlog as lots of the 95%'ers try to sell their coins before the price drops, and a massive price drop for coins on the 5% fork. Gavin Andresen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150929/1104ed67/attachment.html> original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011245.html
Last January, news.Bitcoin.com reported on Jonathan Toomim’s project Xthinner, which could help alleviate such problems in the future. Xthinner is block propagation software that leverages canonical transaction ordering (CTOR) and can compress blocks by more than 90%, if all of the transactions in the block were previously transmitted. Software developer and miner Jonathan Toomim published a video on July 2 which shows how he built a benchmark to measure the performance of the Bitcoin Cash reference client Bitcoin ABC. Toomim’s test generated 672,000 transactions and mined them into blocks in roughly a nine-minute time frame. Software developer and miner Jonathan Toomim published a video on July 2 which shows how he built a benchmark to measure the performance of the Bitcoin Cash reference client Bitcoin ABC. Toomim’s test generated 672,000 transactions and mined them into blocks in roughly a nine-minute time frame. Toomim asserts that Grasberg is “a big step on the path to corruption” and it “was not properly simulated.” ... the Victoria Falls Stock Exchange is open to listing bitcoin and other ... The controversy really heated up after the Bitcoin ABC development team decided to adopt Jonathan Toomim’s ASERT Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA), but also included the controversial Infrastructure Funding Proposal (IFP) coinbase rule as well. If the rule was to be applied, approximately 8% of the coinbase reward would be set aside for ...
Toomim Bros. Bitcoin Mining Concern uploaded a video 3 years ago 6:36. ZCash GPU cloud mining at Toomim Bros - Duration: 6 minutes, 36 seconds. Toomim Bros. Bitcoin Mining Concern. How to use Shapeshift to exchange bitcoin? - Duration: 9:08. One Month 24,322 views. 9:08. GDAX Tutorial - How to Trade for Free - Stop vs. Limit Orders - Duration: 8:28. Jonathan Toomim Karol Trzeszczkowski Bitcoin Cash Coffeehouse is a new series that brings together developers and other members in the community for thoughtful discussion in order to figure out ... 🎥: Top 4 Exchanges To Buy Bitcoin & Cryptocurrencies For Beginners! 🚩: Binance Exchange (My Favourite): 👉 https://www.binance.com/en/register?ref=RMY9N5F0 TBC EXCHANGER PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE FOR COMPUTER USERS.. Free To Download. Download Link 1: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lfLTQWhbOepE1sPSa3SyJhwu0Uj6JDK...