Search

BitCoin News On Air

Bitcoin News everywhere

Date

May 18, 2017

Not bitcoin, not any coin, can scale on chain to meet the world’s coming demand for decentralized money. We need to activate the feature that will allow off-chain solutions that do.


Not bitcoin, not any coin, can scale on chain to meet the world’s coming demand for decentralized money. We need to activate the feature that will allow off-chain solutions that do.

Just like Moore's Law predicted back in 1965 that computing power would double every 12 to 18 months, we are now witnessing the transaction counts for doubling on bitcoin at an even higher frequency.

Given that we are basically at maximum capacity already this means that if we were to scale on chain, the block size would have to double at that rate, leading to 8 MB blocks well before the next block reward halving and 128MB blocks before the halving after that or even sooner.

On chain scaling simply is unrealistic. The argument that segwit doubles the block size is besides the point because scaling the blockchain gets us nowhere. Doubling the block size does not buy a lot of time. Only secure, off-chain transactions (aka Layer 2 systems) can deliver on the promise of a large scale, worldwide, decentralized, secure system of money. And the most important aspect of SegWit is that it enables Layer 2 systems.

Miner refusal to activate segwit, which fixes the bug that prevents effective deployment of layer 2 solutions is the primary menace holding back bitcoin and, quite frankly, holding back the world's access to the future of money.

There are two paths to proceed with that have been making the top of this week's submissions: UASF and compromise of SegWit + 2MB blocks.

In fact, it took only 2 days of advocacy for UASF to bring the compromise recommendation out in full force.

We should not give up on either of these. Because actions speak louder than words, there is really no guarantee that Bitmain will actually ever accept SegWit even if the compromise solution is proposed once more. I welcome users to pledge to upgrade to a 2MB hard fork if SegWit is activated. If this gets Bitmain to signal for SegWit, then I say "fantastic". If this doesn't actually bring about miner activation of SegWit, however, before the August 1st flag day for UASF, then I think it's clear that BitMain is pursuing short term fees at the expense of long term viability of Bitcoin, and we can cut them off of fees until they activate SegWit by ourselves activating it using the UASF.

Remember, the UASF does nothing new if miners signal in favour of segwit before its flag day.

So I call on every user, those in favour of and those against big blocks to run the UASF clients and declare for or against bigger blocks as a following step. If we begin with SegWit, we get a bigger block from it (which is purely a temporary stopgap to deal with the next few months of volume) and the ability to deploy layer 2 solutions. Advocating for only bigger blocks only is a stopgap measure that leads to the same dead end we are already at.

As soon as segwit activates we can have a healthy discussion about how to build consensus around a hard fork. And the urgency will still be there to discuss it as bitcoin's growth will only accelerate once SegWit activates.

My concern with expecting a compromise to get approved in any short period of tie is that there are too many parties with too many conflicted motives with too much language barrier and too many details to expect a negotiated settlement to arrive in any reasonable time frame.

I have huge respect for the developer community who have delivered a system that has remained up without any interruption for years. I have huge respect for the miners who have invested heavily in securing this network from attack. I have huge respect for the users that have come on board and converted whatever portion of their savings to bitcoin and stuck with it through all the highs and lows.

There is nothing to lose by activating SegWit as soon as possible and keeping the debate about bigger blocks going. The UASF moves the community of all those constituents forward towards the necessary requirements of the future. If any one particular miner does not wish to be a part of that future, they have to be left behind, but not forever. They can rejoin at any time they choose.

Let's move forward. Let's activate SegWit by requiring all blocks to signal for it by August 1st via UASF. Let's make the future of money possible for the whole world.

Submitted May 18, 2017 at 05:55PM by logical
via reddit http://bit.ly/2qC5NyA

Advertisements

CNBC: “Looking for portfolio protection? Here are two things to buy right now” Guess what one of them is?


CNBC: “Looking for portfolio protection? Here are two things to buy right now” Guess what one of them is?

Busting into MSM to fuel FOMO! http://cnb.cx/2rwT0gc

Submitted May 19, 2017 at 04:34AM by mmmaarc
via reddit http://bit.ly/2qyBuuX

BIP148 and the risks it entails for you (whether you run a BIP148 node or not)


BIP148 and the risks it entails for you (whether you run a BIP148 node or not)

BIP148 is happening beginning on August 1st, 2017. But what does that mean for the average user?

For purposes of reading clarity, "legacy" means nodes not enforcing BIP148.

Risks for both legacy and BIP148 nodes (and the wallets trusting them)

If and only if BIP148 has minority hashrate support, there will be a chain split. Whether your node supports BIP148 or not, there is a risk that your economic counterparties (ie, people you want to pay and people you want to pay you) will be on the other side of the split. So long as nobody double-spends, this should be mostly okay for 100 blocks (about 16 hours); the only difference will be that transactions might confirm at different times. But if 100 blocks pass and miners begin spending their newly mined bitcoins (different on each side of the split), the chains' balances will begin to diverge, and transactions will become tied to one side or the other. There will be two "bitcoins".

Risks only for BIP148 nodes

Hey, there are none! 🙂

Risks only for legacy nodes

If the chain splits, then when / if / every time the BIP148 chain gets longer*, it will replace the legacy chain. Transactions that had confirmed on the legacy chain will become unconfirmed (unless they are also confirmed on the BIP148 chain). Bitcoins mined by legacy miners will cease to exist, as they lose their blocks. (This cannot occur in the inverse direction: no matter how long the legacy chain gets, BIP148 nodes will never let it reorg out the BIP148 chain.)

If the chain splits, the BIP148 side will have Segwit activating, whereas the legacy side will remain stagnated. There is a possibility this will give a market bias in favour of the BIP148 side, even independently from its initial adoption.

* Note that even a minority-hashrate chain can get longer than the majority-hashrate chain with some variance, although this becomes less probable with time. (On the other hand, the longer the chain split goes on, the more likely the BIP148 side grows in hashrate relative to the legacy side.)

Avoiding a chain split (and all the risks above)

A chain split can be avoided entirely if a sufficient amount of the economy adopts BIP148. Miners depend on their minted bitcoins in order to pay electric costs and recoup ASIC R&D costs. If the price they can sell their legacy bitcoins drops too significantly (possibly to zero when/if their blocks get reorg'd out by the BIP148 chain), they will have no choice but to switch to the BIP148 chain themselves, ensuring it is the longest chain for both BIP148 and legacy nodes. If the economy shows strong enough deployment of BIP148 prior to August 1st, it is even possible miners may switch preemptively, avoiding a chain split from occurring altogether. Note that only 51% of miners need to switch to the BIP148 chain to resolve or prevent the chain split, not the original 95% target.

BIP148 can also be automatically cancelled entirely by locking in Segwit before August 1st.

So there are a few ways a persistent chain split might be avoided:

  • 95% of hashrate locks-in segwit before August 1st. No chain split at all.
  • 51% of hashrate deploys BIP148 before August 1st. No chain split at all.
  • 51% of hashrate deploys BIP148 after August 1st. Chain split gets resolved.
  • Legacy miners are compelled by the economy to switch to BIP148 after Aug 1st. Chain split gets resolved.

Basically, everyone’s risks go down with more people running BIP148 nodes. 🙂

Submitted May 19, 2017 at 01:32AM by luke-jr
via reddit http://bit.ly/2pQ8dwz

Why Silbert’s Segwit + 2Mb HF Compromise for the Scaling Debate is Bitcoin’s Best Shot — A Simulations Approach


Why Silbert’s Segwit + 2Mb HF Compromise for the Scaling Debate is Bitcoin’s Best Shot — A Simulations Approach
http://bit.ly/2pQwh2t

Submitted May 19, 2017 at 02:52AM by champbronc2
via reddit http://bit.ly/2qC2nfh

We at GiftMargin.com are now selling discounted Amazon gift cards for bitcoin up to 10% off


We at GiftMargin.com are now selling discounted Amazon gift cards for bitcoin up to 10% off

We at GiftMargin.com are now selling discounted Amazon gift card codes for bitcoin. You can get up to 10% off the card balance so if you want to use your bitcoin to save money on Amazon come try us out.

Pay by bitcoin and get your Amazon gift card code after just 1 confirmation. You can then use the code immediately on your amazon account.

Submitted May 19, 2017 at 01:13AM by b4dlust
via reddit http://bit.ly/2qBHT6j

Barry Silbert‏: “We now have miners representing 69.2% of the bitcoin hash rate in support of the scaling compromise”


Barry Silbert‏: “We now have miners representing 69.2% of the bitcoin hash rate in support of the scaling compromise”
https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/865053936675426304

Submitted May 18, 2017 at 12:29PM by xurebot
via reddit http://bit.ly/2qUj5K3

U.S. Firm to Launch Sale of Digital Token for Forex Trading by REUTERS


By REUTERS

Fintech Investment Group, a U.S.-based commodity trading adviser, plans to launch an initial coin offering in June for its own token that allows investors to trade currencies on a digital platform, company founder Alan Friedland said….

Published: May 19, 2017 at 03:51AM

from NYT Business Day http://nyti.ms/2rwwLap
via IFTTT

A night visit in Bitmain Israel offices


A night visit in Bitmain Israel offices
http://bit.ly/2pQ8vDD

Submitted May 19, 2017 at 01:12AM by Bitim
via reddit http://bit.ly/2qBCRqC

BIP148 and the risks it entails for you (whether you run a BIP148 node or not)


BIP148 and the risks it entails for you (whether you run a BIP148 node or not)

BIP148 is happening beginning on August 1st, 2017. But what does that mean for the average user?

For purposes of reading clarity, "legacy" means nodes not enforcing BIP148.

Risks for both legacy and BIP148 nodes (and the wallets trusting them)

If and only if BIP148 has minority hashrate support, there will be a chain split. Whether your node supports BIP148 or not, there is a risk that your economic counterparties (ie, people you want to pay and people you want to pay you) will be on the other side of the split. So long as nobody double-spends, this should be mostly okay for 100 blocks (about 16 hours); the only difference will be that transactions might confirm at different times. But if 100 blocks pass and miners begin spending their newly mined bitcoins (different on each side of the split), the chains' balances will begin to diverge, and transactions will become tied to one side or the other. There will be two "bitcoins".

Risks only for BIP148 nodes

Hey, there are none! 🙂

Risks only for legacy nodes

If the chain splits, then when / if / every time the BIP148 chain gets longer*, it will replace the legacy chain. Transactions that had confirmed on the legacy chain will become unconfirmed (unless they are also confirmed on the BIP148 chain). Bitcoins mined by legacy miners will cease to exist, as they lose their blocks. (This cannot occur in the inverse direction: no matter how long the legacy chain gets, BIP148 nodes will never let it reorg out the BIP148 chain.)

If the chain splits, the BIP148 side will have Segwit activating, whereas the legacy side will remain stagnated. There is a possibility this will give a market bias in favour of the BIP148 side, even independently from its initial adoption.

* Note that even a minority-hashrate chain can get longer than the majority-hashrate chain with some variance, although this becomes less probable with time. (On the other hand, the longer the chain split goes on, the more likely the BIP148 side grows in hashrate relative to the legacy side.)

Avoiding a chain split (and all the risks above)

A chain split can be avoided entirely if a sufficient amount of the economy adopts BIP148. Miners depend on their minted bitcoins in order to pay electric costs and recoup ASIC R&D costs. If the price they can sell their legacy bitcoins drops too significantly (possibly to zero when/if their blocks get reorg'd out by the BIP148 chain), they will have no choice but to switch to the BIP148 chain themselves, ensuring it is the longest chain for both BIP148 and legacy nodes. If the economy shows strong enough deployment of BIP148 prior to August 1st, it is even possible miners may switch preemptively, avoiding a chain split from occurring altogether. Note that only 51% of miners need to switch to the BIP148 chain to resolve or prevent the chain split, not the original 95% target.

BIP148 can also be automatically cancelled entirely by locking in Segwit before August 1st.

So there are a few ways a persistent chain split might be avoided:

  • 95% of hashrate locks-in segwit before August 1st. No chain split at all.
  • 51% of hashrate deploys BIP148 before August 1st. No chain split at all.
  • 51% of hashrate deploys BIP148 after August 1st. Chain split gets resolved.
  • Legacy miners are compelled by the economy to switch to BIP148 after Aug 1st. Chain split gets resolved.

Basically, everyone’s risks go down with more people running BIP148 nodes. 🙂

Submitted May 19, 2017 at 01:32AM by luke-jr
via reddit http://bit.ly/2pQ8dwz

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑