frib 2017-01-15 01:56:01
will segwit be adopted?
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:00:37
frib: doesn't really seem like it. Some claim there are better solutions, but I haven't read up about it so can't say
frib 2017-01-15 02:01:44
poijgrh, isn't it "imperative" that some changes be made?
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:02:43
frib: personally, I don't see the problem with having a dynamic block size (like in Bitcoin Unlimited & Classic) but I know having that opinion is an easy way to be kicked out of this channel or any forum
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:03:14
But what do I know
frib 2017-01-15 02:03:41
poijgrh, i've noticed that too. but I know less than you clearly
frib 2017-01-15 02:04:05
what is wrong with a dynamic block size?
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:05:03
Requires everyone to update their clients I suppose - but that is not very hard if the Bitcoin Core team wants it, as theirs is the most popular (since it's the continuation of Satoshis original client)
frib 2017-01-15 02:05:05
and what did Satoshi suggest in regard to this? wasn't there something like "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit"
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:06:14
frib: right. Seems like a good idea, but expect some rudeness from unnamed Core contributors if you talk about it
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:07:24
I guess the big problem will be that the Blockchain size will grow very large, so you can't have one on your laptop anymore. That is a real tradeoff, even if I know what choice I'd make (and am making by running Classic)
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:07:42
So it's not black or white
frib 2017-01-15 02:08:47
isn't the blockchain already like 80gb? pretty soon you won't be able to keep it on your laptop regardless.
xpitr 2017-01-15 02:09:13
i feel that soon enough full client will be the domain of servers, and on normal devices we'll only use thin clients
xpitr 2017-01-15 02:09:22
electrum and w/e
poijgrh 2017-01-15 02:09:29
frib: that's true. I'm keeping mine on a usb-connected 2TB hard drive as my SSD is already full to the brim anyways
marijnfs 2017-01-15 02:09:37
frib: segwit is absolutely necessary, so segwit or something like that really needs to happen. But with the current process it might be difficult since it needs at 95% majority
frib 2017-01-15 02:10:02
marijnfs, most people I have spoken to don't see it becoming a reality
marijnfs 2017-01-15 02:10:03
I think at some point some big pools will make the switch and then it goes quickly
frib 2017-01-15 02:10:12
marijnfs, yeah I also thought of that
xpitr 2017-01-15 02:10:46
on the other hand i wish there was other client than core that can hndle large amount of transactions
marijnfs 2017-01-15 02:10:46
frib: i just see some people repeating that it wont happen according to them without good reasons
frib 2017-01-15 02:10:49
is bitcoin too centralized ?
xpitr 2017-01-15 02:10:53
electrum really melts down with >20k
marijnfs 2017-01-15 02:12:08
xpitr: with the coming of segwit and lightning, the process will be much more decentralised and scalable
frib 2017-01-15 02:16:21
marijnfs, isn't decentralization against the interests of large mining operations?
frib 2017-01-15 02:17:34
or is there a sort of equilibrium that the need to keep? such that when the price becomes affected beyond a certain point they will voluntarily switch to segwit?
haakonn 2017-01-15 02:24:36
the problem with dynamic blocksize isn't that the blockchain grows too quickly, it's that it is gameable by big miners and lets them consolidate their power
marijnfs 2017-01-15 02:41:25
frib: the miners should in principle keep users happy, users can move to other chains although thats not quite possible at the moment
