Bitcoin Forum

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

1 MB was perfectly fine for Bitcoin at the beginning. But like all technology, after some time it becomes obsolete and will require an update.
The problem of bitcoin is not that it cannot be better, is is the community that can't seem to find a way how to achieve that progress, arguing and forcing different scaling solutions.

If that will continue then Bitcoin might be stuck forever with 1MB and it won't be long before users frustrated with the bitcoin network will ditch it in favor of other cryptos.

It is clear that the investment community will be obliged to diversify.  Bitcoin can go a long way on 1MB blocks and big (relatively) transaction fees; it appears SegWit is not gaining the support it needs to go through but who knows it may still make it; without SegWit can Lightning be made to work?  Which other altcoin is going to become the darling of scalability?  Or perhaps there will be many.  Or is there indeed some fatal flaw that always draws any of them into centralization?

All PoW coins will Centralize , the laws of economics guarantee it.

Fewer Miners, higher prices (due to manipulation), and higher fees (eventually to become unsustainable)


 8)

It makes sense to the Blockstream group, because with a bigger block size the LN would not be necessary for a much longer time. If I was a cartoonist, I would have drawn a picture where the Blockstream guys were stepping on the Bitcoin guys throat and only allowed enough room for him to breath, without him dying from suffocation.

In the Blockstream guys hand is a oxygen cylinder called, "SegWit$$$Lightning Network" and in the little chat box, it will say.... " Pay or Die "

Yes, there is already a big queue of transactions waiting to be confirmed.Only seven transactions per seconds is very less for such a growing bitcoin network.If it is not solved, many bitcoin users would think about switching to other altcoin probably Monero in which transaction is fast enough and also anonymous.

Indeed, they have been planned to increase block size, as far as I know from entities positions : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
There is no any other option if we expect for more adopters and transactions per second.
Time confirmation will become problem all the time for mass adoption if they don't do it, maybe this year or next year.

Should have been at least 2-4MB some time ago.

i disagree.
we need to increase the block size but things are not that bad if we only see legit transactions in the pool. right now we have a massive scale spam attack which is increasing the number of unconfirmed transactions.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776143.0

the thing about blockchain and bitcoin is that you can spam but you can't hide.

What are you talking about? With segwit we get 2-4 mb  ;) if I'm not wrong.

There has to be a way of stopping soam attacks without bloating the blockchain.

Increasing the blockchain makes just sense if you enlarge it 3 times but getting the capability of making 30x or 300x more transcactions, like with LN.

Ignorelist stupid.

Lets wait for lightcoin to integrate segwit, so devs can test ln on largescale. If everything works it can be adopted to btc.

Because monero has what 3 transactions max in a block? Public blockchain is the most important thing ever. It can avoid corruption if ised by government. We want be there and not on a hidden transaction layer missused by criminals and corruption, boy.

The first time i read intelligence here. There is hope! For the community

Yeah, I believe they wait to test segwit with lightcoin first, they don't want to risk bitcoin without confidence

i read on reddit that apparently F2Pool (which is a big mining pool with a huge hashrate share) said they will activate SegWit on Litecoin.

but the miners support is 0% for some reason http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php either i am missing something or they haven't yet started signaling!

Eh... spam attack or not, blocks are full... and fees are (too) high. Wasn't "cheap and fast" transactions one of the major advantages of bitcoin? Bitcoin is neither at the moment... The only thing it currently still has is decentralization, well sort of atleast... Increasing the block size isn't a permanent scaling solution IMO but it is the temporary one we NEED right now until LN arrives. People are running away from bitcoin and going into altcoins atm because they're cheaper and faster right now...

Let them... I want to buy bitcoin cheaper  ;D ;D ;D

Who decides whether or not a transaction is "spam"? And even if it is spam, they do pay fees. The problem is: even with fees that would have been called very high just a few months ago, I'm now waiting almost 24 hours for my transaction. As a Bitcoin user I don't really care if "spam" is the cause, it should just work.
Sites like https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx or https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ nicely show you how much to pay for a fast transaction, but the end-result is we're all paying more, without processing a single transaction more.
The last 4 blocks all have more than 1 Bitcoin in fees, up to 1.7 Bitcoin. That's huge!

Remember when "cheap transactions" was an argument to use Bitcoin? To grow, it needs more users. To get more users, it needs to be able to handle them. Meanwhile, the miners have a 1.7 Bitcoin per block incentive not to increase block size.

4mb? no way, at best it's 2MB, actually a bit less, but miners do not agree in the activation, it will never happen


well pos coin is even more centralized, with the bad distribution and the scheme of rich become even richer, you can't have fully decentralization

the only way was to change the algo every so years to prevent asic and keep the gpu mining, maybe it will be done in the future, if 51% become a reality

blocks are full because of spam attack. before the spam attack blocks were bare full and number of unconfirmed transactions were about 2K (normal).
fast yes, and it is still fast to send but slow to confirm
cheap, i don't remember ever reading cheap transactions in the bitcoin paper

- i am not arguing that we don't need block size to go up, i am saying we need it but lets not be fooled by why blocks are full and mempool is this big

people running away? don't make me laugh. who in his right mind is giving up bitcoin to go to a manipulated altcoin with 80% pre-mine and developer holding all the coins in existance?

Cheap wasn't in the bitcoin paper, I'm not denying that but it is what the community said, just google: "bitcoin advantages" and look at how basically all of them include "low transaction cost".
Blocks aren't full because of spam attacks, without spam attacks the blocks would be full aswell, the spam attack just makes the waiting queue even longer.
Can you name an altcoin with a market cap higher than $50 million that's manipulated, 80% pre-mined and where the developer is holding all the coins? LOL

google "bitcoin advantages" and you see things like "get rich quick" and "to da moon" and also you will see lots of "bitcoin is dead" "going to zero" etc. it doesn't mean they are correct. random people say random things.
before spam attack they were barely full.
yes: ethereum. the dev dumped 1 million dollar worth of it last year when its price was at its peak, the foundation also holds a very large portion of the supply and they do pump and dumps regularly.

Yes with segwit you can raise the size up to 4mb but the effective cost limit so the blocks will remain balanced is about 1.6-2 mb https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/. Besides that, I am not sure if the last days is only a spam attack in the network and not increased real transactions too but 160s/byte for fast confirmation is unacceptable. Thus, the only people in bitcoin world who have sure and big profit are only the miners. Aren't they?

Then why are you here talking about it, giving the rest of the "investment community" an informational heads-up about where the crypto market is going? Smart investors do not reveal their strategies, David



I'm not holding out much hope for those wishing to invest wisely using your advice.


Still not hopeful, lol



David. You need information to be an investor. The information has to be well researched and veracious. You need facts. If you would like any more investing basics, be sure to let us know.

May we know the reason why increasing the blocksize will never happen? Does increasing the blocksize will cause more problem than to solve our problems?

It probably will happen, as Segwit probably will activate. Yes, blocksize increases do carry risks, so doing the fork the right way is very important. Not everyone agrees on how the fork should be done, lol

PoS will only Centralized if it has extremely high interest rates, where the holder never has to sell anything but their interest to Profit.

A POS coin with extremely low interest rates will not centralized, as whenever the holder sells any , he is selling from his principle amount and not just interest gained.  :)

Chinese already have ~68% combined, they are not letting anyone change the algo , BTC core can't even activate segwit because the Chinese don't want it.


 8)

At the point where nearly all non-miners want to enable a feature but a few miners are blocking this change, it makes sense for the users to not relay new blocks that prevent the change. It makes no sense to allow a few miners to keep the Bitcoin system as a hostage.

Chinese Miners already agreed to a blocksize increase up to 8 Megabyte.
BTC core is the one refusing to update the blocksize and
are instead trying to force everyone to accept segwit & LN, an OFFCHAIN version (which is no better than using a bank.)


 8)

Only minority of miners agreed with blocksize increase. majority stick to segwit

The Chinese are ~68% of the miners dum dum.
Hard fork could happen tomorrow with no problems.

 8)

not all Chinese support unlim

As I already wrote, I see this as the best solution. Those 3-4 miners fork into a new coin. The rest continues with the current Bitcoin system. Win-Win - everybody gets what he wants!

Your concern is good, Satoshi never thought bitcoin can be so huge on users and market cap, therefore he designed only for 1MB. 1MB is too small since nowadays there are more and more unconfirmed transactions, 2MB or bigger block is imminent to be updated, personally I support SegWit, hope it will be updated asap.

If BTC core released an update to an 8MB blocksize , all of the Chinese Miners would update, and the rest would have to follow or get left behind.

Unlimited is higher than 8MB, and some of the Chinese miners don't want to go higher than 8mb, because they are concerned the Chinese internet infrastructure can't handle more than 8mb.

8MB could last for a few years before needing to worry about it again.
(When your house is on fire, you don't order a sprinkler system, you get as much water as possible and put out the damn fire.)
(BTC house has been burning for a few months now.)

 8)

8MB will "work" until someone wants to enforce a change again and pays for the "stress test".

LTC fixed the spam issue in 2015.
There is nothing stopping BTC from using the same type of fix.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/litecoin-shows-there-is-a-simple-fix-for-spam-attacks-on-bitcoin



 8)

They just wanted more profits so thats why they declined to the increase of 8 megabytes blockzise. Probably btc core has internal links with segwit, LN and offchain versions. I just dont understand why they wanted to make bitcoins more complicated, if it is possible to just increased the blocksize to  8 mb without resorting to other measures then its the best choice.

have you even seen the recent spam attacks sizes?
there was time before when they did all 0.0001BTC with small fee attacks. right now they are doing random sizes with random amounts and high fees virtually undetectable by code. but they have been found.

Before you make up stuff, please read what satoshi (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366) himself says about this:

We have 4 times more blocks by now, and it's still not implemented.

this is about the "spam" cries. and a way to solve it using CODE. not fee's


though there are spam attacks. we need to truly stop using a umbrella term, in regards to calling lots of different types of transactions "spam".
for me i consider BLOATED transactions that spend funds EVERY block an obvious spam attack.
yet others treat simply spending less than 0.1btc a spam attack.(facepalm)

in a world outside of america/europe. 0.01btc for instance can be a weeks wage and 0.001btc can be multiple hours of labour.
for the unbanked developing countries we should not be considering something spam, purely on the basis of how much is spent, but on bloated transactions and transactions that are spent too frequently outside what appears normal spending behaviour.

---

bitcoins 'priority' calculation are no longer appropriate, many pools dont even use it anymore.
the calculation of:
(value *age) / size. does not help anyone. because someone with 1000btc can respend multiple times an hour fee free. but someone with only 0.Xbtc has to wait weeks or pay a premium. victimising the poorer nations effectively
thus it only makes it a calculation beneficial for the rich.
the 'priority' calculation needs to change to be more about bloat and age. and not about value.

---

eg knowing that the blocksize limits how much data is allowed. a new calculation needs to have considerations of making there be a points system for blocksize vs tx size. more so then making the value the consideration changer
 so that the leaner the tx size is, the more points are rewarded. which when blocksizes increases. would make the leaner transactions earn more points for staying lean.

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
this means if super lean you can spend funds every 7 hours with priority. but being bloated (100k blocks) you have to wait months.
this then makes bloated transactions PAY MORE to make up for the missing points.

---

it also means that rich spammer cannot bypass it by just moving a larger reserve for free.
ofcourse my example can include extra variables. such as if people voluntarily put in a CLTV maturity of X blocks to show they wont respend for atleast X blocks (because CLTV prevents it) they can gain extra points too

EG
((blocksize/tx size)*age)*CLTV confirms.
=((1000000/226)*6)*6      159292
=((1000000/226)*6)*7      185840
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389

which is an example of someone who naturally may want to spend every couple hours. where their funds are only an hour old.
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
dont have to wait >6 more hours
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
they can just voluntarily tell the network they are happy to lock themselves into a 1hour 20minute maturity after the respend.
=((1000000/226)*6)*8      212389
to get priority.

meaning if you volunteer that you are not going to respend those funds for 8+ confirms. you get priority. which mitigates the respend every block true spam. because this calculation averages a 2-3 hour respend acceptable natural human timescale.

it also helps by giving users an option to say it needs to be accepted sooner.(a true "hey guys i really need this to go through, but accept the punishment for this need) making the wait PRIOR to confirm less, by making the waiting time AFTER confirm, more. thus a way to show the network who actually NEEDS priority the most

though a bloat spammer can just put a mega long CLTV on a bloated tx to gain priority for their first tx, they atleast once confirmed the funds wont be respent fast due to the CLTV maturity needing to be met
(no matter what the priority is of the second attempt, CLTV prevents respends until mature)

it makes it so that if you want to spend sooner (imagine its not maturity locked first) the sooner you want to spend the longer you have to wait to respend AFTER confirm. thus solving the wait for confirm 'trust' people getting paid dilemma
EG
if matured funds are only aged 3 blocks instead of 6. you have to volunteer not being able to re-spend then for 16 blocks instead of 8
=((1000000/226)*3)*14   185840
=((1000000/226)*3)*15   199115
=((1000000/226)*3)*16   212389

so that the faster you want to spend(after maturity) the longer you cant respend the second time. thus effectively stopping a spammer spending every block because they end up waiting atleast 2 hours before conditions are met

---

though my calculation is not perfect for every instance of utility. i think that usual / natural spending behaviour of only buying things once every couple hours is normal.. and mitigating the spend every 10 minute intentional spam.
for those wanting to bypass this because they GENUINELY need to spend every 10 minutes.. (not intention spam, but a niche need)
such as the small niche of day traders/faucet raiders/gamblers
they can use the niche market commercial LN service VOLUNTARILY to get their many spends an hour.

thus having an equal balance of people that only spend lets say once a week that dont need LN can happily spend onchain. but those that do need many spends an hour can use LN... natural balance is restored

im sure someone can be inspired by my idea of changing the priority calculation. by adding in or using variables in a different format to achieve something better then my example calculation formula.. and way way better than the current priority formulae

So in other words, they are now sending the amounts and paying fees as high as everyone else.

BTC community is really pathetic , just increase the blocksize or increase the fees.
However increasing the fees makes the alts more attractive.
Sorry ass Dev Team, BTC has there, this problem has only been getting worse while they do nothing except trying to sell LN as a replacement.

 8)

yes and even more fees as they plan on getting confirmation and then spend again so they need faster transactions so they include higher fees.


it is not the community, it is a group of assholes probably getting paid to do it. and it is possibly because of block size debate.
i am more interested to know which side is responsible


lol nice joke.

@Franky1

In some versions of PoS, we use coin age.

It sounds like what you want to add to the BTC transaction priority calculations is Transaction Age.

Older a Transaction gets the higher its priority to be entered into a PoW Block.
That would help if they implemented it.

or

they could just go back to a first come first served transaction policy, and charge everyone a flat fee based on the amount.
(But That's not going to happen.)


 8)

Bitcoin price continues to increase and that is what matters, the system is stable although not very reliable because one can never know when a transaction will be confirmed, if more transactions are important people can use some other coin like litecoin.

As far as investment goes, bitcoin is perfect as it is...

The security of the blockchain is king, without it the price will go to zero.

Which leads into the hesitation to change things it would seem. Logical but.. I stand by my title.. I offer no great solution just something like a linear increase in size so mores law dominates any linear increase but that isn't much of a suggestion.. All I know is 1MB in 2040 will just be overly silly.

with a GOOD dynamic block code. the NODES.. emphasis NODES flag what they can cope with. and then when a confident majority of nodes can cope with more bytes. the pools would then ease themselves into it and weigh up the orphan risk as they test the water by making small steps BELOW the new acceptable limit ensuring little to no orphan risk for their attempts

Sorry if this question has been answered before, I haven't read anything about it.

Do we actually have any idea who's behind these spam attacks and what their purpose is? Is it just to put pressure for bigger blocks?

No one said that they want 1 MB forever except a very small amount of people. Everyone in Core devs except one dev wants to raise the blocksize after segwit gets activated. Activate segwit in order to safely raise the blocksize. No segwit? no blocksize increase, blame miners and not Core devs.

blame core..

pools wont move forward until there is good node validatability.
core decided to avoid getting nodes to update and show validatability.

core shot themselves in the foot thinking they could bypass security.

who wants to keep blocksize at 1mb? I was under the impression bitcoin was meant to scale.

Arguably segwit might not be the best implementation, but it is still a solution maybe...?

I am not blaming anyone.  I just would like to try to get a attempt to do something about it going.

I like something like an increase of 50% every year.. keep it under moores law not equal to.  I dunno..

THEMOS.. lead the charge!!!

this forums webmaster? (i think u misspelled) who begged for donations years ago to update this forum... but years later its the same thing.
if he cant update a webforum. dont desire him to supervise anything, no matter how close of a buddy he is to the blockstream crew

It is already overly silly, but price's up so everything is fine.  :D

How many pools want Unlimited? only 20 % including those, who earlier supports bitcoin xt and classic. Approximately 25% support segwit and the majority just wait to test segwit on lightcoin first

BU and Segwit go head to head, BU support briefly surpassed SW few days ago.
Supporting block increase =/= supporting BU

As far as I recall, Antpool's stance was that they will support SW but only after 2mb hardfork, not sure whether they still stick to it. I reckon F2pool could have similar stance, but I'm just guessing as I'm out of the loop with current affairs.

Can you provide any quote from any major pool confirming they wait with the decision after the Litecoin 'testing'?


I love that logic:

BTC price drops: "Price means nothing! that's just speculation"
BTC price goes up: "See, that's a clear sign that Bitcoin is doing fine!"

What makes you, or the OP, think that blocksize is the only way to scale up?



If the target is everyone (billions of people) using Bitcoin, using the blocksize to grow is not possible. Blocksize is not a scaling solution, it uses resources at the same scale whether it's 1 MB or 100 MB.

Blocksize is not a scaling solution on its own, but should still be part of the solution.  We need everything and the kitchen sink.  SegWit, Blocksize, Lightning, Atomic cross-chain transactions, sidechains/treechains, etc.  People generally understand that the blocksize is one of the more costly elements of the formula, but we still have to find a balance.  Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

there goes CB yet again throwing down the

not verbatim: 'bitcoin mainnet should not scale onchain because billions of users by midnight.'
its much like saying in the 1900's cars should not be built because billion cars by midnight..

firstly. rational thought.
bitcoin wont have billions of users overnight. infact bitcoin wont have billions of users over decades.

a rational thing to think of is about 5% of the world adopting bitcoin naturally OVER DECADES
meaning it can scale.

if people think bitcoin is going to be the 'one world currency' and no other currency is going to exist then say goodbye to freedom of choice and say hello to bitcoin just becoming as corrupt as the IMF

instead think of it as just rationally taking a good healthy spot as one of the top 5 "nations"(communities)
think of it as being an open choice to have as a secondary currency to their own national currency.

then realise it wont happen overnight.

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do. ::)


Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
if you need someone else to sign a transaction.. say hello to 'permission'
also
if you need a hopper to agree to be part of a payment.. say hello to 'permission'
meaning its no longer permissionless.

lastly due to the costs of 'hops' vs 'hubs' it will naturally turn into people saving funds by using hubs.

oh and CB, please learn CLTV maturity (resembles 3-5 business day delay for end user experience)
oh and CB, please learn CSV revoke (resembles chargebacks for end user experience)

what about a variable blocksize?

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

There isn't a good proposal yet that:
1) Doesn't give the miners too much power.
2) Or which is very hard to game.

---

AFAIK it is stated somewhere that the general consensus long term is a variable block size, but that requires a lot more research and testing.

I think we'd also have to start slipping nodes a few satoshi's from transaction fees if something is implemented that makes the chain excessively large.

As always, research and testing should be done to the max.

Plus we shouldn't forget about the "open" part.  It's hardly an open system if people are forced to transact off-chain because on-chain is constantly full and prohibitively expensive.  I'm confident that node operators will make their own judgement calls based on the level of service they're getting from the system as a whole.  Users won't support a system that doesn't support them.  If the user experience deteriorates to an unacceptable level, users will take action to remedy it.  Simple cause and effect.  The only thing yet to be determined is if we do SegWit then blocksize, or as a compromise do both at once just to end the current impasse.  It seems clear that both (and more) have to happen.



Whether you deem it "nonsense" or not, it's still a dramatic shift in how the system operates.  I, for one, am glad that people are stopping to think about the ramifications.  It seems like almost everyone has a slightly different idea in their head about exactly how Lightning is going to operate in practice.  Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns.  I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...



Precisely.  Thinking ahead and considering the potential shortcomings about that proposal.  It's not "nonsense" to do that.  It's sensible.  So why are we shooting down people talking about Lightning in exactly the same way?

Sometimes I wonder what are these mining machines doing if not processing the transactions?
1-What are they really doing some sort of unneeded extra work?
2-Are they secretly trying to find the next prime?
3-Why there are some blocks with just a few TXs?
4-And why the protocol allows such small blocks?

LN is banking, no way around it ,
BTC onchain network has real BTC on it,  on LN you are trading nothing but a representation value of BTC , as being off chain, BTC can not actually be on the LN Network.
IE:  Banking  ;)


You stirred up a pet peeve of mine with that permissionless BS.

... and what? If there's any chance they're not, you should find out for yourself. The idea that any credibility should be afforded to a consistent Bitcoin troll of 4 years+ is a joke, Franky has proven to be such a troll so, so many times. Every bit of his weirdo politics has ended up proven wrong, upon which he just moves onto the next scare tactic. Which makes your opinion a bit of a joke, doesn't it?

This is one of the best short opinion posts I read about the blocksize debate and I fully agree. I would use LN, if it works the way it is described by its supportes - but only for very small, non-critical (regarding to privacy and security) transactions, the way like we today use prepaid and gift cards, and perhaps for the coffee in the bar the next block. But on-chain transactions should never be a privilege of "Bitcoin banks", "payment processors" and other large entities. So I want all - Segwit, LN and a conservative block size increase, because we will continue to see technical advancements that make a bigger blockchain feasible.

Whatever you say, Carlton.  Anything to set the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a troll and have nefarious motives.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it's no less disappointing each time you do it.  Less personal attacks and character assassinations, please.



Now, see, I wouldn't go to this extreme either.  It's not that black and white.  Plus, it is still real BTC, just lifted temporarily off-chain until settled again.  There is no fractional reserve in play, nor should there ever be.  LN has its place and it should be implemented, that's a reasonable standpoint, but at the same time, it's not a substitute for on-chain scaling and no one should be forced into using it.  They're all individual elements of an overall scaling solution.  Again, everything and the kitchen sink.  

No it is not real BTC on LN,

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN (offchain) is a representation of that value.
(No Different that when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.  ;)

 8)  


FYI:  http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
BTC        =  Gold

Just History repeating itself.  ;)

It's a fact, and both you, me and the rest of the honest forum members know it.

You're lying. You know Franky is not debating honestly, and that you do not debate honestly either. That's why you and the rest of your cronies will lose: your words will prove themselves to be false when the Bitcoin Unlimited train actually leaves the station. You will scurry away into the darkness, never to be seen again when BU implodes, of course, because your dishonesty will be proven.

So hurry the fuck up and get your fork over with, the constant droning of your lies is not worrying or irritating, it's just boring.

Somebody needs a nap, you seem a little cranky.  :D

http://media.giphy.com/media/11aZUiX22ztyik/giphy.gif

 8)

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.   
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

I can promise you that LN would be dead in the water if there was even a remote chance of fractional reserve or an increase in the total coin cap.  It's one of those red lines that consensus will never cross.  You won't be able to settle a total on the blockchain greater than that which was initially locked.  All coins can be traced back to their coinbase origin, while sums created through fraction reserve would not have such an origin to be traceable to.  Network rules wouldn't accept or validate a transaction where the output was greater than the input and the additional coins appeared from nowhere.  Miners and nodes will never accept those particular rules changing.



Go be bored somewhere else, then.  All you have left is an endless barrage of insults and a tribalist mentality (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1757284.0) that causes unnecessary friction and polarisation.  Anyone who isn't with you is against you and there's no happy middle-ground or compromise.  I've already said we should implement SegWit and also have Lightning as an option where it's appropriate, but you still just want to attack everything and everyone if anyone even dares to utter the word 'blocksize'.  Triggered much?

And no, I'm not going to conveniently disappear in the event of a controversial hardfork, because I would much rather see a unified approach where the majority agree where the blocksize limit should be set and we all move forward together.  You're the proud bannerman of the fork-off brigade who takes great delight in the prospect of one tribal group crushing the other.  Admittedly there may have been periods where I was sick of your (and ice, brg, davout, hdbuck, etc's) hardliner crap (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1175596.msg12375776#msg12375776) and thought maybe it would be best if two chains went their separate ways, but I'd rather see unity.  I will continue to call for compromise and a consensual fork, not a bilateral split.  And even in the event of a split, I certainly won't be shorting any chains.  I'm afraid whatever happens you're stuck with me.  

There is a very slim chance to gain consensus on something like that IMO.

Wrong. Once you are actually on LN, i.e. you have locked in funds, transacting is both faster and cheaper[/b] than doing so on-chain.

Looks like you're uninformed about this troll. He does sometimes have some valid points, but that's it.

Because trolls and FUDers post nonsense about it. You've seen an example above my previous post (franky) and below it (kiklo).

You must be joking. Nobody reasonable wants these shitcoins. Out of a 1000, maybe 2 are decent.

Maybe a few more are decent? Don't really have the patience to sift through all the crap ones though.

I think we'll eventually want to incentivize mining nodes or even have to when the blockchain becomes less weildly.

Huh? Mining nodes are incentivized by the subsidy and the accompanying TX fees. I think you meant to say, non-mining nodes?

Yes, thank you. It's late in the morning...My sentience fades.

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

It's faster and cheaper for repeated payments to and from the same person, sure, but that's not relevant to every transaction.  And when someone wants to settle on-chain to send those coins to someone else not using lightning, you'll still have to wait for a block when you close the payment channel and settle before you can spend those coins elsewhere.    

I also wouldn't mind some clarification regarding which party pays the miner fee when the balance is settled on-chain.  I don't see people discussing that in great detail.  The whitepaper states that:


If the fees are held in advance, how is one supposed to know what the appropriate fee will actually be by the time the channel is closed?  

If decentralized routing is to be implemented as planned, the part "to the same person" becomes incorrect. All transactions on LN would be cheaper and faster. However, I'm not currently informed on the status of decentralized routing.

Since when is this a LN thread? If we are going in-depth about LN, then we are going far away from the subject. I also do not have an answer for your question, although I could ask for it. Please do not listen to the pseudo-science post that is coming from some of the trolls. They are probably lurking around.

Quite ironic, isn't it?

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

so
satoshi qt the original tribe.. then in 2013 another tribe within the pre-existing tribe starts, call it core.. which then tribals off again in 2014 as blockstream.. with 'white chief poking-bear' as tribal leader
then label the dissenters (those that are not core /blockstream but were old qt) as the invaders is immoral.

i think CB doesnt understand the word ironic, otherwise he would realise he is defending the immoral tribe he tries to describe.

why is it blockstream defenders play the victim card by doing the exact thing they point at others. especially when its obvious that al they care about is tribal leaders and not the whole bitcoin community

CB yet again falsely suggesting non-core want to fork

last month it was
"no its dangerous they should not fork" - they never were going to anyway
now this month
"hurry up and fo a fork" - they never were going to anyway.

please learn consensus CB.

We get it
You think Blockstream is New world order and all that stuff
Let's get back to topic, shall we?

first please learn the difference between consensus and bilateral splits.

then you will realise soft or hard both have best case consensus and both have worst case bilateral.

when mentioning hard. in simple terms is NODES first then pools follow
when mentioning soft. in simple terms POOLS first then NODES follow(if they choose to want to become fullnodes again)

soft gives pools too much power.
hard does not give pools too much power.

please learn the basics. it doesnt require knowledge of C++ to learn these basic concepts and terms. which makes things easier for you.
it has been months since i first asked you and your buddy to learn the basics which should have taken 20-30 minutes to grasp.

why are you not bothered to learn about bitcoin?

That has no relevance to my post. You are either a very bad troll or you've become delusional.

Pretty impossible with people like mr. 'franky1', as you can see above.

If I'm wrong please correct me, centralized bitcoin means majority of hashrate owners nodes runners always decide what to do.
Now they are doing as they wish and they care for the success of bitcoin but they also want more power and more profit.
They are heavily invested and wont back down and know that every one using bitcoin is either invested like themselves to avoid risking large amounts over higher fees or are just average users with no impact on economy if stayed or left.

I want to point out something, when US and RU see they are somewhat equal in military power, what they do? they simply try backstabbing each other by soft wars, sanctions, using veto etc.

In this community is exactly the same, as there are Core(US)- BU(RU)- and others are like China and other countries, even though they share similar interests(in our case they all want to have more power over blockchain and support bitcoin but non of them is willing to compromise for the sake of the bitcoin's future.) 

this topic is about bitcoin blocksize growth.. which is about consensus... you can meander your posts into being about personal attacks all you like.
you can fake it all you like that your the victim,
but atleast spend 30 minutes learning about bitcoin.
learn consensus vs bilateral

Increasing block size wont scale anything. You get scaling when two processes can work in the same time without waiting on the other.

With blockchain it would mean two or more blocks could be mined in the same time without waiting or depending on each other.

Increasing block size or decreasing block time increases throughtput but doesn't increase scaling.

 The only one valid next block concept prevent true scaling , as all miners/stakers need to synch on the next block, and cant "advance" The blockchain each on their side.

To have true scaling it would require to distribute tx across miners for that they can each mine a different block in the same time. But with current blockchain principle that cannot happen as only one of the two block would get accepted.

Having a double chain system would allow cheap scaling.

To me the only thing that truly prevent mass scaling is the competition for block reward. Without this, many secure scaled system can be thought of.

The logic of coin emission control via block reward make it difficult to scale easily, as the total coin supply need to be controlled on the whole network, if a consistent emission curve is to be maintained.

I guess when cap is reached and emission curve flaten, scaling become easier.

learn consensus
there would be only one chain. and NODES decide the rules... not pools, not devs.

one chain that the limits change when NODES signal they can cope (meaning no 'datacentre by midnight/gigabyte by midnight' doomsdays)
then pools secondarily start making blocks to the size the node consensus agrees to.

anything that the nodes dont consent to because devs have bypassed consensus would get orphaned.
less consent
(lower consent=more orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)
(higher consent=less orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)

And since only 5% of the nodes and a minority of the miners support BU, core should win?

neither side wins..
rules stay the same until consensus is met.

learn consensus

Firstly, you can voice whatever opposition you like if you actually have something more than personal attacks to offer.  If you think you're capable of that.  Play nice and you might find others start to do the same.

Secondly, it's not just you pushing the tribalism mindset, it's the vehemently anti-blockstream crowd too.  Both "sides" are as bad as each other.  But obviously I must be one of "them", right?  Because everyone who disagrees you absolutely has to be a BU fanatic who wants to fork Bitcoin into oblivion.  And from the perspective of the anti-blockstream fanatics, anyone who disagrees with them is equally untrustworthy and wants to control Bitcoin.  Somehow both sides genuinely believe the other to be evil, when in reality it's just people being belligerent and uncompromising.  Both tribes need to stop sniping and start discussing things reasonably.  Step one: stop telling people to fork off if you disagree with them.



I think it would help assuage concerns if we all had a greater understanding of what it is that's actually being proposed.  It seems like people arguing both for and against it can't explain it very well beyond the basic concept.  More often than not, the argument is presented that we should simply trust developers to get on with it, but that only flares tensions and results in the two groups sniping at each other with insults again.  There's no way I'm locking my funds into a multisig address until I know every conceivable outcome and I expect the same applies to everyone.  But if you'd prefer that all the LN stuff go in a new thread, we can do that.  This one is swiftly heading beyond redemption anyway, heh.

Learn logic

LOL,  :D

You think they are going to tell you it will have the ability to do fractional reserves.
It is an offchain representation , there is nothing stopping them from adding an update ,that allows fractional reserves.

It is just history repeating itself, learn from it or be enslaved by it, readers choice.
 
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
BTC        =  Gold

 8)

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html
by Henry Ford


Updated for LN
by Kiklo

I only speak 2 language , English & Logic.

Sorry, Franky1 is correct in his viewpoint and you are incorrect in yours.  ;)

Logically Speaking.   ;)

 8)

Whether "they" tell us or not, it will be apparent from the code, which people will look at before they run it.  People will see that you can't add to the balance once it has been locked.  The total can't be changed.  You aren't handing your coins to the custody of a third party where they can alter the balance.  And no, someone can't just "add an update that allows fractional reserves", because the code that governs the network is set in the client and users wouldn't update their client if the new code allowed fractional reserve.  Enough with the conspiracy theories.  It's clear from your posts that you haven't read a single thing about it.  You're only proving my point that the anti-blockstream hardliners are no better than anti-blocksize-adjustment hardliners.

It was apparent in Banking and that did not stop people from using Banks.
It will be apparent in LN, and the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud also.

And make no doubt , fractional reserve banking is nothing but outright fraud.

I have read the LN whitepaper , your attempts at smearing me with propaganda techniques is sad & pathetic.

LN will do exactly what the Goldsmiths did, you are naive & foolish not to see that.

Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are forever doomed to repeat it.   ;)

 8)

FYI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691802.msg16985041#msg16985041
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691802.msg16985332#msg16985332
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1691802.msg16992577#msg16992577
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1776119.msg17758623#msg17758623

Okay, I'm not the only one seeing it, surely?  It's like you and Carlton are the exact same person, only you believe the exact opposite things.  For a split second I thought I was reading one of his replies.  You're like Nega-Carlton.   :D

I must have stumbled upon the middle-ground if I'm now getting it in the neck from both sides.   :D



Great, fractional reserve is fraud.  I agree there.  But I think it's an insult to those securing the network to assume that they would be so ignorant as to allow such a horrid change in Bitcoin.  It's nothing like a Bank that can alter its terms and conditions at any time without prior warning or consent and no one can say or do anything about it.  The rules are defined in the code and the code can't be changed unless there's a sufficient majority who accept the change.  

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting with "the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud".  But if you mean there was such a thing as a hub running their own code to magically create new coins from nowhere, that software would be different to what everyone else was running.  Those transactions wouldn't be compatible and wouldn't be accepted into the blockchain.  

There are some legitimate concerns about Lightning (http://codesuppository.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-lightning-network-is-so-great-that.html), but fractional reserve isn't one of them and time will solve many of the others.

doomad

if you put aside the "21m coins" max logic, and instead think about the 2.1 quadrillian units of measure (satoshi's)
much like not thinking about $21 dollars but thinking about 2100 pennies (smallest sharable amount)

and then read the LN paper about their 'millisats', you realise that in contracts they want to transact in millisats
2,100quadrillian millisats instead of 2.1quadrillian sats.

though the '2.1million bitcoin' is not changing. the numbers of 'shares' / units / divisibility can be changed.this means it can mess with the mental psychology of scarcity.

imagine it another way.
you have a loaf of bread that can be cut into 20 slices of bread.
yes your thinking that a loaf of bread can only feed 20 people at most. no more. only 20 slices exist and only 1 loaf exists. now you can have people fighting over owning the whole loaf or fighting over the 20 slices.

now imagine a Baker comes in and decides to cut each slice into 10 strips per slice.

now suddenly there are 200 pieces of bread that can be shared around with 200 people

yes there is just one complete loaf. or 20 'slices' but there are now 200 shareable pieces
the whole supply/demand dynamic can change if people are able to have/receive more pieces

now here is the challenge,
get a $20 bank note
and find 2,000,000 people.

now shout out what the people are willing to trade with you for that $20
you will get lots of people offering you many things. upto a value they see as worth $20.. where by your the only holder so you can pick the best deal offered.

now change it for 2000 pennies.. suddenly when asking what people will offer you for it. less people will offer you the same deal as before for the entire 2000 pennies. most will start giving you lame deals for small amounts of sat 100 pennies.

now change it for 2,000,000 grains of pnny metal dust.
.... silence. no offers..
but technically you still have $20.

now you see the issue of making bitcoin more diverse.

its not technically fractional reserve, but more so 'diluting shares' mindset

BTC miners & BTC nodes secure the BTC ONCHAIN Network.

LN Hubs will Secure the LN Notes, BTC miners have no power to determine how LN handles it's OFFCHAIN Note system.  ;)

Your link above, the guy that wrote it is an idiot, he says and I quote

Just a few lines down on the same page , he contradicts his earlier statement.

See when people lie , like he did , when they keep talking , the contradictions appear.  ;)

LN=Goldsmiths/Banks

History unlike humans does not lie.

 8)

Agree but that is conservative approach. 2 MB  would be good, but that would be precedence, that would be used to increase size further with rising risks of spam etc.

THIS.

And in order to keep things simple and blockchain not bloated, a simple increase to 2MB would be good. Right now transaction fees would be just about right, but if they go much higher Bitcoin gets hurt.

That second part could probably have been phrased better, but if you've somehow come away with the impression that LN does hold custody of any funds, that's purely down to your misinterpretation of it.  He's not lying, you're just looking for a problem that isn't really there and somehow twisting the words to suit your preferred meaning.  Yes, for it to function, "it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time".  That's how it works.  You lock the total, then within that total you can send transactions back and forth.  When you're done, the same total remains, no more, no less.  I don't see how you think that's in any way a sign that someone can make some coins appear out of nowhere and then add them to the blockchain.  It simply can't happen.  

It will happen inbetween the software layers, BTC onchain will show 1BTC, and the LN will Represent it as 4 BTC for all LN contracts.
Or it could be as simple as 4 BTC were originally in the onchain address and LN represents 4 BTC on their offchain system, but does not fully lock the entirely of the amount, say they only lock 1 BTC and the user transmits the 3 out to another BTC onchain address, with the LN system none the wiser and still reporting their initial amount.

It is an offchain system, there is Absolutely No way to guarantee they won't counterfeit coins or fraction reserve the amounts.
You are trusting a 3rd Party LN to report accurate data , but in truth , you can not be 100% sure , until the BTC Onchain transactions has been confirmed.

Also LN does have penalties that can be triggered to steal from you and you will not receive a balance back.

 8)

FYI:
Onchain can be trusted, Offchain can never be trusted.

this is benefiting miners, they have been earning more money because of the increasing amount of fess. and guess what they have been the ones holding back on adopting any solution for block size (segwit or any other things).

pools dont care much about fee's, for them a fee is just a bonus, not expected income.
pools care more about ensuring their blocks wont get orphaned/rejected. losing them the real income(reward) AND fee (bonus). so they are not going to push for something unless the nodes are ready for it.

50% node readiness = 50% orphan risk
95% node readiness = 5% orphan risk

so even though core thought bypassing a node vote would slide a change in under the rug, smart pools are not going to risk it, and are waiting to see a high node readiness even if the nodes dont officially get a vote.