Bitcoin Forum

Bigger blocks do not scale. It's just kicking the can down the road and opening a can of worms.
Offchain transactions do scale on the other hand. You can have as many offchain txs as you desire.

Comments? 

yes but bigger blocks are easy and low risk to implement now until sidechains etc are fully developed and thoroughly tested.

Larger blocks, offline transactions and sidechain are not mutually exclusive. We can have, will have, private payment systems (offline tx) and open payment systems (sidechains) to suppliment the mainchain. Kicking the can down the road is better than waiting for concepts to materialise.

It's not like bigger blocks would come at no cost. They cost a lot. (investors confidence, nerves, nodes, HD space, bandwidth, and so on)
All this while blocks aren't even full. Maybe by the time blocks are full better solutions are already available.
Then again i think Gavin wants central planning and QE in btc why else wouldn't he want to test upward feepressure?

Offchain txs are available already, today. For example offchain settlement between big btc companies. That's a sector that can expand a lot. Big exchanges and payment processors aswell as online wallets can all settle once a day and keep all traffic offchain. Also microtransactions aren't needed on the chain but Gavin wants to accomodate them for whatever reason.

This Gavin-shitcoin doesn't make sens. Never has, never will. Mark my words: Gavin is gonna crash the ship. He's got no oversight over the bigger picture. He's lost in details. His judgement is not to trust.

And how many offchain transactions will you be making if they're so great?  You say "offchain" like it's no big deal, but what you're proposing is a two-tier service.  Guaranteed security for anyone on the blockchain, risk for everyone else.  Placing trust in a third party to handle transactions for you kind of defeats the purpose of this whole idea, doesn't it? 

If blocks aren't full yet, then cost of bigger blocks is minimal now and we will have peace of mind for at least several years. Ample time to code and test the sidechain solution.

I am a supporter of off-chain payment networks too. There isn't one that is trustworthy and a lot of users are paranoid with these type of wallets with shared ownership of keys/multisig.

When I first started, inputs.io sounded promising and we know how it ended.  :-[

What's the problem with a trusted exchange doing an offchain tx to a trusted payment processor or wallet?

If a service is dishonest it doesn't matter if you deal with it on or offchain.
If a service is honest it also doesn't matter if you deal on or offchain with it.
Point is: it doesn't matter with big (trusted) services if you're dealing on or offchain. Saves you txs fess too.

that is the problem.

Might as well just whip out the Visa card if on-chain are too expensive and left to use off-chain transactions.

It's not. If the services don't send txs properly offchain the word will spread about that and soon they are out of business. You know how it's going in bitcoin land: if you have no trust score you can't do business.

Trust is hard to earn and easy to loose.

Better than downloading 3 GB of data every day only so you can play satoshi dice for 10cents a bet....
AND HARDFORKING WITHOUT CONSENSUS YOU MORON!

Well why not start using your credit cards if you like off-chain transactions so much.

Nothing at all wrong with any of that, except that it's exactly what we've had for decades with fiat. If you're happy with fiat why use bitcoin at all?

Bitcoin is ABOUT not having to trust any third party. Whilst it is inevitable that certain trust-requiring algorithms/institutions will be built on top of the core blockchain tech, it is important that everyone who wishes to continue using bitcoin in a trustless fashion, can do so.

This thread is infested with always the same Gavin-tards. It bores me. None of you has a life, right? All you do all day long is shilling Gavincoin across all platforms?

R-E-T-A-R-D-S

You *have* actually read Gavin's proposals, haven't you? You *are* aware that raising the blocksize limit doesn't happen until there's an overwhelming consensus, aren't you?

I find your argument not entirely convincing, sir.  ::)

You are the one FUDDING.  Offchain transactions using trusted authorities pushes
Bitcoin toward centralization.   Calling a block increase "gavincoin" instead
of arguing the technical merits makes you the shill.

Losing the debate again, let's call everyone Gavin-tards.  Really helping your cause there.   ::)

If you don't appreciate the merits of a trustless, decentralised system that's open to everyone, why are you even here?  Call it shilling if you want, people are going to stand up for what they believe in.

I've been debating recently whether to change my node over to XT or not.
Your angry personal attack has just made up my mind. THANK YOU.
I am changing it over tonight.

Hint: I'm not joking by the way. I really am. ;)

Edit: Oh look what I've just found. User "Pecunia non olet" aka desperate Popescu is starting self-moderated threads now, so 20MB supporters can be silenced. LOL Too funny.  :D
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077762.0

they still offer a bigger margin and provide a way to avoid to increase it again, in a not too distant future, and also cover our ass in the case the transactions per day skyrocket, one never knows, it could happen in few months if everything is put in the right place

Gavincoin will bring node count further down and thus make the network less decentral. I don't see how offchain txs make the network less decentral. Some Gavin-bot explain please.

We could waste our time explaining to a sock puppet when you already know the answer.  Or better yet, you could go back to your self-moderated thread where you delete any posts that don't support your (and MP's) agenda.  You're not fooling enough people to make a difference.

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

lol.

How do you scale offchain transactions without trusted intermediaries?

If I want to buy a car with Bitcoin, is the car salesman really gonna
take my word for it: "Yeah i promise no one else has the private keys
and I won't try to move the funds as soon as I drive off the lot."  ::)

@colex
what does that have to do with it? Nothing, that's what.



You make your car payment on chain, dumbo.

So you admit offchain won't work there.

Lets try again..I am selling widgets on a website for 0.01 BTC, how do I
take offchain payments for that without using a centralized service?

The storage will never be a problem but broadcasting 20M data throughout the network in 1-2 minutes will be a challenge. With the arriving of 4K TV, bandwidth should be upgraded to 1GB in not so far future, so at least in 5 years it will scale

Bigger blocks do scale. One only needs to step back and take a look at the history of technology over the last 50 years and the last 200 years.

Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin makes as much sense as running the VISA network using the tabulating machine and punch card technology of the 1930's and 1940's

leave the code as it is.  market forces will work themselves out. 
there is no threat. 
the network will not crash.

if you're selling items for 0.01 btc you should use a third party and not want to clog the blockchain unless you're willing to pay the market determined fee. 

by keeping the network fee based you maintain decentralization

the network is decentralized.  not free.  value your bitcoin and the network they are on.  do not promote bitcoin spam on the chain.  it will devalue all of your holdings.

Could not have said it better. 0.01 payments can be made in the cheapest way whatever that might be (if there is demand more service providers will pop up like changetip).

One can make 0.01 payments on chain but needs to be prepared to pay fee. If you want to save on fees for your small txs you'll find service providers who help you save up on fees.
All this works itself out with free market mechanisms.

Your car payment can be and will be made on chain and you won't mind to pay the fee for that.

Keeping the block limit means everyone keeps the access to the network but just needs to be prepared to pay fees for the txs. With Gavinfork many people will loose direct access due to bandwidth requirements. (all of africa, a lot of asia, a lot of south america). The Gavinfork effectively prevents access for half the globe. I'd rather pay fee or use 3rd parties for micro txs than loosing half the world for adoption.

Nope, bigger blocks don't scale. They just increase thoughput but "scaling" is something else ...

some people dont have a good understanding of the problem at all. storage is no problem.

micro sd with 512 GB by the way

http://up.picr.de/22151853sv.jpg

^ 512GB! That's unbelievable.

They are still thinking in terms of punch cards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card) Don't you understand how many punchcards it takes to store 512 GB, and how many forests will have to be cut down for each rewrite of the data.

we are already using gavincoin and have been for 5 years. those hating gavin coin want the following:

a blockchain that has multiple otherblockchains attached.
the result of this is:
20 blockchains in one ledger =same databloat
19 premined altcoins = greedy profiteering for the sidechain creators
20 x more available coins in a single ledger = bitcoin no longer rare

thats if there was to be a truly decentralized block chain (multicoin ledger).. but we all know that the sidechain guys just want to make a centralized database and have people trade fake/counterfeit tx's that are not bitcoins.

sidechains ruins everything bitcoin supposed to be,
but as gavin proposes to simply expand the potential limit of blocks does no harm.

what about you makes them scale, with an algorithm, if the amount is between x and y, raise to xMB ecc...

it should not be too hard i believe, what will prevent this from working?

18 nodes are running XT's latest version.

That's less than 1% of the network. So what is all this fuss about ?

At this point, we should stop talking about Gavin's project to fork Bitcoin to increase blocksize, because it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Let's move on to more relevant topics.

they are just trying it, and don't forget that the changes are not even operative, basically xt it is like core with two others small features

Trying to stifle the discussion by asking people to stop talking about it makes me a little suspicious of your motives.  You posted basically the same thing in this thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1075431.msg11552701#msg11552701) yesterday, so I may as well give the same reply:

Running XT at the moment is a token gesture unless you're interested in it for its other features.  The update for the increased blocksize hasn't gone live yet.  I'm sure you'd like the current numbers to be representative of support for the fork, but they aren't.  I can assure you this topic isn't going anywhere.

Well I've changed the user agent of my node so my one won't show up in your 18.

We will reach a point where 1MB is not enough, offchain or not.
I agree that minimum treshold of small transactions should be active so micro transactions go off the chain, and "normal amount of money" transactions stay on the main chain, but guess what, even 1MB will eventually not be enough.