Bitcoin Forum

Yeah lets be totalitarian. It sure does fit bitcoin's vision  ::)

I would like to have a rational explanation about why you poeple think free choices but be fighted. And how does that fit bitcoin vision.

If you would stop shilling and enter into a discussion then maybe that would be possible.

How a discussion is possible with people unwilling to move an inch in a timely mater?

Let me guess - it might be because people like you don't allow any time (apparently it has to be done "right now").

Your strategy of trying to say that "this is an urgent thing" is rubbish and everyone with half a brain knows that (but you still keep pushing it).

So it is very clear you are aiming at people with "low intelligence".

You see how you keep losing when you argue with me?

Ok. Then you just proved me a discussion is impossible. Now accept the fact that people are freely moving away and move along.

Well you could start a public shame list in this thread. It's about time they get what they deserve. I think that this thread is more suited for Meta though.

The "corporate takeover" already happen, Blocktream is now the owner of bitcoin development and they're pushing their agenda, maybe you should be worried about that...

The "corporate takeover" already happen, Blocktream is now the owner of bitcoin development and they're pushing their agenda, maybe you should be worried about that...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. What are yours?

The fact that no other scaling proposition other than the for profit privately owned Liquid should be worrying you. I'm not again Liquid but clearly blockstream have the wrong priorities on the scaling manner.

The fact that no other scaling proposition other than the for profit privately owned Liquid should be worrying you. I'm not again Liquid but clearly blockstream have the wrong priorities on the scaling manner.

There are different propositions being worked on right now by the various people at Blockstream. Too bad you can't keep track, being retarded and all that.

There are different propositions being worked on right now by the various people at Blockstream. Too bad you can't keep track, being retarded and all that.

Let see if anyone of these will be implemented in a timely manner.

There must be an underground facility in Manchuria turning out these shills like sausages and then sending them unknowingly out into the world with a pat on the bottom.

Again - there is no "need for a timely manner" this is just another bullshit "shill" thing.

You should consider running as a politician in Australia as they spout the same sort of nonsense that you do (and just look at how much Australians respect politicians).

Keep on ignoring the "time" variable. It will sure help your cause.

And keep on trying to make the "time" variable a thing - it isn't.

Manchuria?

Did you not read anything about history?

Nobody cares about Bitcoin XT. They can talk about it in altcoin boards, like Monero and Dash boys do. They can't hurt our precious technology called Bitcoin.

"Nobody"

K.

This place is full of XT shills, most of them get paid from adverts in their signatures. A lot of them are Alt coin supporters who want to see Bitcoin fall.
If they want Gavin Bloat coin then they should create a alt coin. They trying to bootstrap their shitty alt coin using the Bitcoin name. Fuck these guys.   

This place is full of XT shills, most of them get paid from adverts in their signatures. A lot of them are Alt coin supporters who want to see Bitcoin fall.
If they want Gavin Bloat coin then they should create a alt coin. They trying to bootstrap their shitty alt coin using the Bitcoin name. Fuck these guys.    

More like they are sticking with Satoshi's original vision. They also still stick with the temporary anti spam limit as an temporary anti spam limit, not a permanent growth limit like small block proponants have twisted.

You XT bloat coin losers will be Ddosed into oblivion, you represent less then 30% of the community. We will burn you out of our network.

You XT bloat coin losers will be Ddosed into oblivion, you represent less then 30% of the community. We will burn you out of our network.

Don't leave us or we will kill you!  ::)

At least you are showing your true colors.

You just want to crash bitcoin to pump alts.

Oh come on. We just want bigger blocks right, now nothing less nothing more. You didn't get that already?

The majority of community and developers doesn't want it to happen tho.
In times like these, i really wish Satoshi makes a statement about the issue and close arguments that are separating this community into fractions. I believe everyone would follow him.

You want war, you want to force your shitty bloated alt coin into our network, you want to boot strap you shitty alt with our network and you will do it at any cost. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a paid shill for a government or corporate entity.
Larger blocks means more consolidation of full nodes. Full nodes the governments can attack. The mining pools are already consolidated. Making them easy to take over by a government body.
You want to spam the block chain so it becomes so large no single person can run a full node. This XT shit is all about power and control of the future of money. When the time comes to up max block size we will all be in agreement but that day is far off into the future.

The majority of community and developers doesn't want it to happen tho.
In times like these, i really wish Satoshi makes a statement about the issue and close arguments that are separating this community into fractions. I believe everyone would follow him.

You want war, you want to force your shitty bloated alt coin into our network, you want to boot strap you shitty alt with our network and you will do it at any cost. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a paid shill for a government or corporate entity.
Larger blocks means more consolidation of full nodes. Full nodes the governments can attack. The mining pools are already consolidated. Making them easy to take over by a government body.
You want to spam the block chain so it becomes so large no single person can run a full node. This XT shit is all about power and control of the future of money. When the time comes to up max block size we will all be in agreement but that day is far off into the future.

The network under its current configuration can not support larger blocks. The vast majority of nodes are small single board computers like the Raspberry Pi.
The propagation time across the network would drive orphan rates threw the roof. You would get Hard forks happening every day.

A majority wants bigger blocks even if BIP101 is have not reached a majority. Anyway that is why a fork is going to happen, because the status quo haven't managed to reach a compromise to satisfy everybody. Plain and simple. You can't force people on a path they don't want forever.

Nope, XT is only about capacity. Keep your FUD for yourself.

these are the XT shills that are filling up our boards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97LpUHFUbSw

Miners are the last one with the power to choose of force/change something.

Bigger capacity can lead to centralization of nodes, that's a fact. I do think that max transaction count needs to be increased some way, i just think XT ain't the best way to do it.
Do you not see how this topic is dividing the community? How can it be good then ..

cheers

I will never support anything other than the original Bitcoin Core client unless the far majority of the pools and such decide otherwise. The votings tell that 99% of the votes are against XT, which says enough.

Miners are Gods here, everyone else dance the way they want or no one and nothing dances at all because the next block would be mined around the time Universe colapses. Keep in mind that by now most miners already paid-off their hardware and can just dump mined BTC and walk away.

I'm new here.  Is bitcoin broken or about to be broken?  From what I gather here....bitcoin seems to be becoming antiquated but nobody can figure out how to keep the blockchain healthy.  It seems that one side doesn't want it to change and the other side wants it to change too fast and too much.  I cannot figure out which side the shills are on.  If bitcoin is in danger of becoming antiquated, we might need to figure out the most efficient solution to avoid that from happening, or another technology WILL take over....plain and simple.

I would like to have a rational explanation about why you people think free choices must be fighted. And how does that fit bitcoin vision.

Users "knight22" and "meono", and their ilk, don't posses any other skill they can use to earn a living.

So they must resort to shilling. Can you imagine dedicating your whole day to spreading lies?

What a pathetic existence they must live. When you look back on your life, will you feel proud for attempting to destroy one of the most positive developments mankind has ever seen?

Come on, XT is only a way to democratically and gradually increase block size . Maybe it is not the final or the best solution, but 7 tx per second is really too few yo imagine a working btc economy.... We need this to be resolved BEFORE it becomes an issue.

Come on, XT is only a way to democratically and gradually increase block size . Maybe it is not the final or the best solution, but 7 tx per second is really too few yo imagine a working btc economy.... We need this to be resolved BEFORE it becomes an issue.

The XT crew have made lowcows of themselves.  Even Gavin has moved back to working on Bitcoin Core (on github).

He has never stopped.
All the claim from idiots that he was stopped developing on Bitcoin was pure shit  ::)

Maybe all of you should get back to reality
http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=650&p=2467

 :D :D :D

The altcoin post...

Someone should seriously ban you it's shame how desperate you are

Is that cow in your signature Gavin cause it looks like Fernando Torres.

He has never stopped.
All the claim from idiots that he was stopped developing on Bitcoin was pure shit  ::)

maybe they just want a solution in the blocksize debate? maybe they just want bitcoin to succeed and scale?

hopefully the next 3 months will bring that solution.



@HostFat

good point. to be static at this stage means death.

Again, he has never stopped working on Bitcoin, whenever it was Bitcoin XT or Bitcoin Core.

I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting that Gavin is a *bad actor*, I'm just supplying evidence to support my claim that Bitcoin XT is considered a laughing stock from the Bitcoin Technical Community.

You can see here that now is still contributing on XT:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/bitcoin-xt
His last message is two hours ago.

He is contributing everywhere he can. (whatever you think he is doing is good or bad)
He isn't going somewhere and then going back.

I think that he is acting without any mutually exclusive way of thinking.

Except for the unfortunate fact that Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT are mathematically mutually exclusive.

The rise of block size to 2MB or higher is essential in the next two years to make bitcoin usable for most people and not to increase the transaction fee too much.

They are usually spreading false information, false promises in order to manipulate people around here. We've seen it in a lot of threads.

Why is not the opposite?  ::)

You are right, but the choice is still in the hands of the users, and not on something else (like a bunch of devs)
BIP101 can't activate without the majority of nodes (and exchanges, payment processors, services ...) and miners.

Bitcoin XT activation of BIP101 doesn't depend on "exchanges, payment processors, services ..." (or anything else).

No BIP101 (as coded in Bitcoin XT) will activate when 75% of the blocks flag it.  The miners being honest or dishonest is not relevant.

Bitcoin XT activation of BIP101 doesn't depend on "exchanges, payment processors, services ..." (or anything else).

You are not correct with your statement.  For example, 76% of the miners may choose to fuck-over the Bitcoin XT nodes, by falsely flagging BIP101 -  Then opening up the XT nodes to cheap double spend attacks whenever they (or anyone) wants.

So the 'stand up to the XT shills' thread became a Gavin and Core vs XT discussion? How about we actually discuss the topic here. The problem does not only lie in random XT shills but the information that they're spreading. They are usually spreading false information, false promises in order to manipulate people around here. We've seen it in a lot of threads.

How can a fucking miner sell his prize if all the exchange aren't using his money!?

He can't. It's the same as simple being dishonest as a miner, making false blocks or else, the network will just ignore his blocks.

You are missing the whole picture.

How can a fucking miner sell his prize if all the exchange aren't using his money!?

He can't. It's the same as simple being dishonest as a miner, making false blocks or else, the network will just ignore his blocks.

Do you think that miners will be happy to make useless garbage blocks, wasting time and "money" because they prefer to? There is no way that this will happen.

And this is because my previous phrases are 100% correct, that is needed that large majority of the whole network wants the BIP101 to happen.
Can you understand it now?

Miners are just complacent slaves, they have no power to change anything and nodes (users/services -> nodes) don't want.

Let me assure you that my previous statement is technically correct.  The Bitcoin Core uses would be completely unaware that the miners have fucked-over the Bitcoin XT nodes, and no money would be wasted in the Bitcoin Core world.

Right back at you; how can a network operate without miners? Miners can sell for cash (i.e. no need for exchanges), a network can't operate at all without miners. It's pretty obvious who has the upper hand here. They're the sole reason that the network is as strong and secure as it is today (hashrate).

If it will happen, it will be because the whole market will want it, deal with it.

Miners will not move on something that doesn't accept their money, or they could just move/jump on another altcoin everyday already (which they obviously didn't)

The only way to make a double attack is making blocks bigger tham 1MB, easy and most of all cheaper The only way to make a double attack is making blocks bigger than 1MB, just one time to achieve it.

Easy and most of all cheaper  ::)

Any XT node would could be tricked into accepting a block ...

Again how much costs this attack? How much costs making a block bigger than 1 MB?  ::)

So it's the same problem that we add with all past forks ::)

It's better to not accept high value transactions during the forks, what a news!

No BIP101 (as coded in Bitcoin XT) will activate when 75% of the blocks flag it.  The miners being honest or dishonest is not relevant.

Bitcoin XT activation of BIP101 doesn't depend on "exchanges, payment processors, services ..." (or anything else).

You are not correct with your statement.  For example, 76% of the miners may choose to fuck-over the Bitcoin XT nodes, by falsely flagging BIP101 -  Then opening up the XT nodes to cheap double spend attacks whenever they (or anyone) wants.

It is just the same, the oldest advice ever on Bitcoin is to accept minimum 6 confirmations  ::)

I give up.

You clearly have much reading and study to do on how bitcoin works.

I hope that you take this opportunity to do some research so you don't look like either: you don't know what you are talking about. or shifting the goal-posts in your debates.

Yeah lets be totalitarian. It sure does fit bitcoin's vision  ::)

The main issue as hand here is not freedom of choice but manipulation through various schemes in order to recruit as many people as possible. This is not the "will" of the users, nor what the market wants. The average joe is easy to be fooled and this is what made XT gain traction. I just can not comprehend how anyone with any common sense would want to join a person who wants to be a benevolent dictator in a decentralized system. This is not false information both Hearn and Gavin have said it at least once.

You're talking about a drastic situation which will not happen. A lot of people would be using Core even if this "industry" moves to XT. There's going to be plenty of people for miners to sell to. I doubt that even if XT succeeds in any way, that the usage of Core will come down to near 0.

wow...  :'(

Of ALL people.. I can't believe you started this 'lynch-mob' thread Ciyam..

You're better than this.

ever wondered how you gain 'lolcow' points in the bitcoin technical community: look no further!

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6579

How about you quote the misinformation rather than just making such statements?

Basically I think we are all getting sick and tired of the XT shills that don't even understand the technical arguments but just seemingly want to have Mike Hearn as their leader.

How a discussion is possible with people unwilling to move an inch in a timely mater?

Totally against it here.  Mike and Gavin can sit and spin.

I don't know who they think they are to basically try a hostile takeover of the world's first (popular) crypto-currency, but that's a pretty shitty move on their part.  There's only a few things in life you simply don't do, and this is one of them.

There's nothing to discuss at this point to be honest. Big blocks centralize Bitcoin, no one wants a centralized Bitcoin unless you are clueless or you have an hidden agenda to weaken Bitcoin. Those are the two only options.

Another idiot making stupid statement.

LOL at "hostile takeover "

Like did he put a gun to your fcking head?

Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what the attempt was.  They wanted to force a hard fork, move everyone to their version, then according to them begin setting up blacklists, and god knows what.  They were doing this for the betterment of their selves, not bitcoin.

Thankfully they fell flat on their face, as the miners have already voted, and they don't give a shit about XT.

Hardfork must happen if you want to change blocksize.

BIP101 is an implementation of a solution. The issue has been debated for 2 yrs that goes no where. The group of ppl who block any proposals are hired and working on Blockstream which competes directly with Bitcoin for growing.

The rest of your posts are nothing but FUD, ie. blacklist and "god knows what"

This has been discussed thousands times. But i'm sure some cluless noobs will fall for all the FUD threads.

...

bitcoin is perfectly working as of now - and despite the spam attacks it undertook.

and for the thousand time, blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively.

...

So what is your solution for Bitcoin to scale?

...

I asked: What is your solution for Bitcoin to scale? I did not ask: What is not your solution for Bitcoin to scale?. There is a big difference.

i understand that blocksize is not a solution to scale. what do you understand?

I understand that storing 4 GB of data in 2015 does not require a warehouse full of punched cards and the budget of a superpower as it did in 1959.

...

what 4Gb of data?

This 4GB of data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg)

are we still talking about the same thing here?

how relevant to scaling bitcoin these IBM card storage are?

Scaling Bitcoin today is as relevant as scaling credit cards was back in the 1950's. http://newnumismatics.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/3/2/41323823/4474661.jpg?331 (http://newnumismatics.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/3/2/41323823/4474661.jpg?331) Does anyone really believe that the current transaction volume of the VISA network could happen with the punched card technology of the 1950s? Yet there are those that wish to cripple Bitcoin to the technology of today.

yes we all agree to scale bitcoin but not in the way that bitcoinXT is propose. Bitcoinxt movement has a hidden agenda and is clear that they want to take control of the bitcoin core.

There is a very significant historical lesson here. Centralized transaction ledgers (such as credit cards) only became possible on a large scale when technology caused the cost of keeping the ledger to fall by many orders of magnitude. The same is true of de-centralized transaction ledgers such as Bitcoin. They will also become possible on a large scale as the cost of keeping the ledger continues to fall.

My take is that a true Bitcoin like de-centralized transaction ledger with at least the transaction volume of the current VISA network is only a matter to time. The only question is will this ledger be Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. In many ways Bitcoin runs the risk of becoming the Diner's Club of cryptocurrency for many of the same reasons. This is the fate of the first mover. Some of us wish to give Bitcoin the chance of becoming the VISA of cryptocurrency

basically you want to turn the bitcoin p2P technology to a centralized supervisa?

seriously you think for one second that fancy-marketed-corporatist-freeloading-xt-corp-gov-coin would retain the same value as bitcoin does now?

why not use ripple then? they got it all up and running already. ::)

No. I am in favor of a de-centralized crypto-currency with mass adoption. It will be driven by individuals storing petabytes or more of data in the future just as they store gigabytes of data today. What I do know is that Bitcoin with a 1 MB blocksize limit will not be it.

Actually a 1 MB blocksize limit ensures centralization because it forces the bulk of the transactions into centralized ledgers such as those kept by banks, credit cards companies. payment processors etc.

Running the Bitcoin client on a 10 year old feature phone or maybe even using a tabulating machine, punched cards and a telegraph line may be feasible but entirely pointless. Ok I jest. After all it was possible even in 1905 to send 1 MB of data over the telegraph network for a price. The price was just within the budget of JP Morgan. So why not reduce the blocksize to a few bytes since that was affordalbe for most people to send via the telegraph network back in 1905.

The reality is that technology does not stand still. In the future this debate will sound as crazy as my examples above.

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

See you in the alt-coin section, ;)

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth). :)


edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

My preference is for market based blocksize adaptive limits that will allow Bitcoin to scale with technological change. There are alt-coins that today have this kind of dynamic blocksize in place. In the interim there is a very good case to move to 8 MB blocks in 2016 just based on the argument that from a de-centralization / centralization prespective this is equivalent to 1 MB in 2010.

...


we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?

otoh i heard ripple is a lot cheaper and faster... where is their mass adoption?

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?
...

Seems like an immaterial point in the context of SPV mining, everytime an empty block is mined they're going to drag down the average. There were many almost full or full blocks in the recent price rise.

Also, maybe OP's wife told him she would take away all his BTC if he didn't go all out anti-XT:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all

Also also, with regards to OP's recent post, there is a version of XT which only implements the big blocks/BIP101 change, not the rest of XT's changes:
https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/tree/only-bigblocks

I'd like to see blocksizes increased, preferably in a dynamic manner like I assume ArticMine supports, but I'm not really invested in or committed to one BIP or another, however the amount of vitriol that gets thrown around here is ridiculous. Maybe all you hardcore "shills" anti-XT or pro-XT should take a deep breath and read this article:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists

but if it ultimately comes to splitting the community, the forkers will have it on their conscience from breaking with this fragile consensus mechanism, and chances are that bitcoin experiment will fail.

just saying.

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

IF some secure and decentralised mechanism is created to transact off the main-chain for low fees, keeping the amount of main-chain TXNs low, who would choose to transact on the main-chain for sky high fees ?

(..since we can't have low TXN count and low fees on the main chain..)

The Lightning Network should actually be cheaper and faster than transacting on the main chain (that's at least what a developer said - search on reddit or ask on IRC). I don't see a reason for which one should not use it. I'd use the main chain only for a high amount of money. Bloating the main chain just for the sake of transacting on it isn't a valid reason.

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

You do understand that the Lightning Network *depends* upon Bitcoin?

It is comments like yours that simply cloud any attempt at serious discussion. :(

..essentially it works like this – If all bitcoin transactions are being discussed in an open forum, its public ledger, the lightning network allows parties to enter into a closed room for a period of time, conduct transactions during that period, and at the end of the agreed time, broadcast these transactions to the network.

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?

So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question?

Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works.

Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf

(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks)

Transactions confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain take up to one hour before they are irrevesible.

..but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

I think that Moore's Law is underestimated by some of the participants in this discussion. Yes, they are considering an evolving technology, but are they considering a technology that is evolving at an exponential rate?
Innovation happens very quickly around digital technology....very quickly!  Some here are too young to even remember how innovative the first Atari Pong game was...loved it...or the 8800 and 8080 chip sets!  We've come a long way very fast since then...very fast....Remember when there was no such thing as a personal computer, a cell phone, or an application specific integrated circuit?  I do!  And I'm still young.

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.


Also, they should probably fix that typo in the summary.pdf:

It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain?  It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right.  Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious.

2) If I have acquired £10, 'lightning-around' (let's say I have just  won a penny poker tournament with 1000 players in our closed room), how will I collect that when the fee for a single TXN on the main chain is more than £10 ?
-snip-

I don't see how that is a problem.

There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements.

In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost.

Exactly why would there be fees so high if there was not a huge backlog on the main chain?

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?

I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely".  We need to tread carefully on this.  What's the plan if miner fees start to drop?  Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut?  Somehow I don't see that working.  The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements.  Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"?

If it is the case, that you always have to revert (send out the final BTC totals) to the main-chain, to 'collect', after a lightning session, won't people with small amounts get stuck off chain, as the fees to re-join the main-chain will be destructively expensive?

The amount we pay the miners, is directly proportional to the security of the network..

If the txn count is LOW then the fees must be HIGH. Unless we want an insecure network.

Says who? IIRC the fees were high so far only at peak time of traffic or during the spam attacks. When did a lower number of transactions cause higher transaction fees? It isn't all simple as this, but I'm disregarding that for now.

Well, if the fees are low and the TXN count is low, I don't see how the miners are going to secure the network (excluding minting) ?

Currently, the newly minted bitcoins are paying for this, but in future, when there are almost no new bitcoins to mint, the miners will need to rely more on the fees to get paid.

Do you disagree ?

hehe, hitting a nerve here, them forkers got NOTHING. only the pitiful yapping. ::)

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

I partially agree. If the price does go up enough, there will be less fee dependence. We can not know what is going to happen and thus this is all speculations. People need to stop looking too far ahead. Even predictions of what is going to happen in the next two years have a very high probability of being wrong. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the XT shills nor the discussion of LN.

You forgot, they have Peter that writes papers about fairy tales.

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

Hypocrite much?

Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the small blockers side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore.

I partially agree. If the price does go up enough, there will be less fee dependence. We can not know what is going to happen and thus this is all speculations. People need to stop looking too far ahead. Even predictions of what is going to happen in the next two years have a very high probability of being wrong. I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the XT shills nor the discussion of LN.

hehe, hitting a nerve here, them forkers got NOTHING. only the pitiful yapping. ::)

XT is not a problem. The saviors are near.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s3u8x/our_blockstream_saviours_and_xt_infidels/

..This kind of "if you are not with us you are against us" attitude is exactly why so many of us are sick and tired of Mike Hearn..

edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.

Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes.

yea thats free fees ad homs, way better than some frappucinos!! :D :-*

err.. Bit rich Ciyam, since you started this 'with us against us' thread !?

XT is an attack on Bitcoin. Don't be so surprised if there are collateral damage within the minority XT faction.

Funny - as I'm not on any side (am just against the XT shilling and Mike Hearn's approach).

I'm not too fussed if the block size is increased somewhat (although I do think that BIP101 is too much and aiming to predict too far into the future).

So - if nothing else, I think this 'discussion' has shown that actually the XT Shills, are actually 'Bigger Block' Shills.

This kind of "if you are not with us you are against us" attitude is exactly why so many of us are sick and tired of Mike Hearn (who has stated he won't attend the block size meetup in December because it would be "a waste of his time").

What is needed is a well thought out and well supported (by miners, developers, businesses and users) way forward rather than a hostile takeover attempt involving misinformation and alarmist claims.

I was actually rather amazed that Gavin had got himself so involved with this although it appears that more recently he is less so.

Blockstream is an attack on Bitcoin development; a take over. That's the reason why development is forking and decentralizing.
The mod behavior is also an attack on Bitcoin. That's the reason why the forums are forking and decentralizing:

https://www.reddit.com/r/trendingsubreddits/comments/3s0i89/trending_subreddits_for_20151108_rbtc/

Sometimes, bad behavior determines good results.

40 commits to the Core GitHub repo since the beginning on the month.

Last XT commit was October 23rd  :D :D

Funny - as I'm not on any side (am just against the XT shilling and Mike Hearn's approach).

It is the XT supporters that are demanding people to "take sides" (and attacking anyone that isn't on theirs but it would be better if the ad-homs were not being used by anyone).

It's not the big block supporters who are censoring, banning, DDoSing.

It's not the big block supporters who are censoring, banning, DDoSing.

Not liking XT does not equate to not supporting larger blocks - you do realise that there are several BIPs for bigger blocks?

(again you are a typical XT shill who just pretends that BIP101 is the only bigger block proposal out there)

If Mike Hearn wasn't doing things like refusing to go to meetups with core developers, miners and major businesses then maybe he would have more credibility but instead he keeps on pushing to become the CEO of Bitcoin which it appears very few people apart from Coinbase want.

Which BIP has been chosen?

Where can see the tests? How soon will it enter the main network?

By the way your forum "forks" are nothing but unproductive circlejerks.

(again you are a typical XT shill who just pretends that BIP101 is the only bigger block proposal out there)

When I compare those threads with yours, I know who is unproductive and who is productive:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-unlimited-ideas-arguments-and-proposals.123/

Please tell me you didn't just linked me to the Bitcoin Unlimited thread, a spherical cow pipedream that's never going to see the light of the day  :D

Who's going to develop it, Peter R & cypherdoc ?

I will keep using XT unless the people behind Unlimited manage to get dozens of developers, companies and mining pools to support their version.
I think it's not realistic right now and we should work together on XT.
If we ever need more than 8GB I'm all in favour of completely removing the limit (I think companies like Coinbase & Circle will make that unnecessary)

 ::) gimme a break. BIP101 was barely tested.

why do you seem to be in a such a hurry?

Because I'm waiting for a confirmation for the last 3 hours and there are 3MB in unconfirmed transactions...

Try paying a fee and not using ad-sig campaigns or faucets or the like to get your coins (which I presume are mostly actually *dust*).

Satoshi never mentioned that Bitcoin should be engineered in a way to suit people to make money from posting rubbish on forums.

Dude, even if everyone payed 1 bitcoin fee the problem is still there, there's not enough room for all the transactions!

Because I'm waiting for a confirmation for the last 3 hours and there are 3MB in unconfirmed transactions...

We need the upgrade now!

And why are you so relaxed?

It's not the big block supporters who are censoring, banning, DDoSing.

Please tell me you didn't just linked me to the Bitcoin Unlimited thread, a spherical cow pipedream that's never going to see the light of the day  :D

Who's going to develop it, Peter R & cypherdoc ?

More than 4000 unconfirmed transactions, total size 3382.8271 (KB), latest blocks very near 1MB.

https://blockchain.info/en/unconfirmed-transactions

I wouldn't call this "barely any activity on the network."

The devs.
Your unproductive fulltime brabbling here will never result in anything useful but the opposite: You and your alikes are the best enemies of core. You are doing great, together with the mods. Go on! Or do you think Adam should be happy with such 'help'?

I'm doing my job supporting Bitcoin, running my node and buying coins.

You, on the other hand are promoting contentious forks from incompetent individuals. I wouldn't say that's productive now, would ya?

he probably does not even have a full coin... ::)

he probably does not even have a full coin... ::)

Both of you joined the forum around alltime high price. Must be the reason why you are so angry and notoriously attacking ad hominem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality

Yep, you scared.

Yep, mostly uneconomic spam not valuable enough for their sender to include a reasonable fee.

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, if I people want to make big transactions and pay a fee fee there are lots of better systems than bitcoin.

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume."
Not
I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or the volume development team thinks is valuable enough to occur.

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, if people want to make big transactions and pay a big fee there are lots of better systems than bitcoin.

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume."

Not

I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be no (bitcoin) transaction volume or the volume development team thinks is valuable enough to occur.

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, if I people want to make big transactions and pay a fee fee there are lots of better systems than bitcoin.

"I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume."

Not

I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or the volume development team thinks is valuable enough to occur.

Bitcoin denominated transactions can be made outside of the Bitcoin's blockchain. Microtransactions are simply not compatible with engineering demand of the blockchain and will be relegated to payment channels soon enough.

Bitcoin is in fact best suited for large transactions (settlements).

If a transaction is not valuable enough to cover the costs of the network security then it doesn't belong on the blockchain.

Network is saturated today, the problem is right now!

Network is saturated today, the problem is right now!

Bitcoin denominated transactions can be made outside of the Bitcoin's blockchain. Microtransactions are simply not compatible with engineering demand of the blockchain and will be relegated to payment channels soon enough.

Bitcoin is in fact best suited for large transactions (settlements).

If a transaction is not valuable enough to cover the costs of the network security then it doesn't belong on the blockchain.

>Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
>> I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully
>> peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.
>>
>> The paper is available at:
>> http://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
>
>We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your
>proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size.
>
>For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have
>monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within
>a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to
>bittorrent.
>
>To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one
>must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which,
> naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past
>transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If
>hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of
>bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
>


Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe
for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for
double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or
about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run
network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the
network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to
specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would
only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with
that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction
would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be
broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion
transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day.
That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or
2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.

If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then,
sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

I see - you have given up - good - now go an "fork off'.

Yep, mostly uneconomic spam not valuable enough for their sender to include a reasonable fee.

...

Is that what Blockstream has decided bitcoin should be?

Because that's not the original plan...

...

Sad but true. Lets us turn Bitcoin into a settlement layer between banks by keeping the blocksize at 1 MB. We then sell it as de-centralization.

Only by *spam* not by real transactions - and no doubt these spam attacks are actually by XT supporters who want to keep trying to say that it is so important that we need to change (and put Mike Hearn in charge) now.

No-one is using Bitcoin for everyday purchases even (I don't know anyone who does - including myself).

So you can go on and on about the bullshit txs representing "real txs" but that is simply not the case.

For a start - you would need to be "paid in BTC" to want to be spending it for everyday purchases - now apart from ad-siggers getting paid tiny amounts who is actually being paid in BTC now?

(answer - no-one - this is just another part of the XT misinformation)

That's not what Liquid is for. It's basically a liquidity pool for market makers & exchanges.

Settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain offers unparalleled security so basically you are arguing that there is not going to be enough demand for this. I consider this pretty unlikely.

Using sidechain technology, Liquid reduces ISL by allowing for rapid transfers between accounts held by the varied participants in a separate, high-volume and low-fee cryptographic system that preserves many of the security benefits of the Bitcoin network. This, in addition to increasing the security of funds normally subject to explicit counterparty risk, fosters conditions that increase market liquidity and reduce capital requirements for on-blockchain business models.

Still, you can see where I'm going with this.  We'll take the description from their own page (http://blockstream.com/2015/10/12/introducing-liquid/):


So yeah, you're right in that it helps increase liquidity, but at the same time, it's allowing exchanges to move large volumes of funds around while minimising contact with the main chain.  Your vision of the future is that traditional financial institutions and big business will settle on the main chain and pay big fees to miners, but if they see exchanges doing it off-chain and still maintaining a high level of security whilst paying less in the process, why wouldn't other industries follow suit in a similar manner?  

Would be somewhat ironic if most big businesses jumped on sidechains and you had to start begging people to put their cups of coffee on the blockchain just so the miners get a bit of income.   :P

So I have to ask, now that we've opened the potential Pandora's box of sidechains, can it be easily closed again if this turns out to be the wrong course of action?

I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.

The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem.

yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. ::)

else of course you are free to fork off.

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s.

Just saying the obvious...

Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.

Just saying the obvious...

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice.

I'm not sure in what world you live in, nor who you're listening to but Bitcoin Core will not stay at 1MB.

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

Some of them really believe that their settlement fairytales come true, and some of them are altcoin shills who are not stupid.

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.  

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around. 

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

Yes i was watching the video, the thing is the community is very number dependant as we have seen with XT falling out of favor with only 1% nodes making less want it, the exchanges aren't going to transfer over if only 10% of nodes are switching because the mining company has smudged the numbers to make it look like nodes are with them and the current version of the coin.

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people  ;)

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours ;)

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent ;D (or just an idiot)

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours ;)

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent ;D (or just an idiot)

likely the latter.

I was just pointing out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

This seems to have gotten way off track from the original topic, this may be in part of BIP100 but it seems like this is going down a rabbit hole of sorts. I think if we are going to start name calling and complaining about the centralization of mining it would probably be suited in a different thread but I guess there are a lot of emotions in these block debates.

Funny, this is the first thing that would come up in my mind for a person cheering for a Bitcoin CEO. They government would surely like this (blacklisting enforced anyone?).

I don't even know where to begin (everyone talking about centralization so far must have been wrong). I'd one of suggest the following: 1) Stop taking part in such discussions; 2) Watch educational (technical) videos and read up more; 3) Ask someone directly for help.

You should keep all that to yourself.

You sounds more and more like an idiot when you all do is attacking.

says Adam Allcocks the master of dickheads

@Lauda
While you suggest me (or others) to watch videos, you should at least watch the one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1240437.msg12933350#msg12933350) where we were talking about  ::)

@Lauda
While you suggest me (or others) to watch videos, you should at least watch the one (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1240437.msg12933350#msg12933350) where we were talking about  ::)

Where is the happy ending?
How does the forkin' fun ever end?

I was referring to the centralisation as a harmful situation for the network, the thing that everyone is afraid of.

Miners' centralized block validation creates a network fork

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/004/130/bagdad-bob.gif

Nothing to see here.

So we should be really afraid of miners solving blocks that will be rejected by the rest of the network?

You guys have such interesting concerns.