|
Title: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 01:47:01 AM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:
Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 10:35:44 AM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law.Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Yeah, the original reason was spam, not for any of the other reasons small blockers espouse. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: DomainMagnate on March 20, 2017, 10:41:51 AM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin. " So 32x bigger blocks (32x more transactions) would correspond to about 32 = 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars." Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: LoyceV on March 20, 2017, 10:43:05 AM Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law. Satoshi also said it can be increased again in the future. Read satoshi's post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366):Quote It can be phased in, like: This is 5.5 years ago now!if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete. When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: davis196 on March 20, 2017, 12:55:46 PM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin. " So 32x bigger blocks (32x more transactions) would correspond to about 32 = 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars." More transactions means more demand for bitcoins which equals to a higher bitcoin price. I guess that this is the logic behind this sentence. Bitcoin Original,bitcoin unlimited,bitcoin magnificent etc.... This is the most obvious way to destroy btc. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: vm_mpn on March 20, 2017, 01:40:06 PM Ok, so why is returning back to original 32 MB block size is a non-starter with core devs? Is it a spam issue and what are the possible remedies?
Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 02:04:41 PM Ok, so why is returning back to original 32 MB block size is a non-starter with core devs? Is it a spam issue and what are the possible remedies? When Satoshi put the 1mb spam filter, the network was not very mature -- mining was CPU or GPU , difficulty was low, and fee markets hadn't even really emerged yet. The spam attacks today are of an entirely different nature -- wheareas before it was about trying to bog down the miners' computers, today a spam attack is about trying to fill up the blocks to congest the network, which is actually easier with a smaller block. I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that. The real reason why its a non-starter with core is obviously the involvement of Blockstream. Their roadmap/agenda is certainly not interested in 32mb blocks. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: thejaytiesto on March 20, 2017, 02:05:57 PM How many short lived memes are you big blockers going to promote until you realize we are stuck with conservative block sizes if we want bitcoin to work?
Im not saying let's keep 1mb forever, but BUcoin doesn't work, and 32 MB out of nowhere is certainly a stupid idea. Segwit is needed in order to properly raise the blocksize anyway. Do any of you use their brain at all? Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 02:08:00 PM How many short lived memes are you big blockers going to promote until you realize we are stuck with conservative block sizes if we want bitcoin to work? Im not saying let's keep 1mb forever, but BUcoin doesn't work, and 32 MB out of nowhere is certainly a stupid idea. Segwit is needed in order to properly raise the blocksize anyway. Do any of you use their brain at all? You sound like a blockstream shill. You have zero proof that "BU doesn't work". Imo, segwit is a poison-pill bloatware that is not needed. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Paashaas on March 20, 2017, 02:47:19 PM Bigger blocks are nice but it wont make Bitcoin mainstream, 1Gig+ blocks are needed unfortunately i dont wanna wait atleast 10 years before the sheeps can start using Bitcoin. In the end we need side-chains, each chain with there own specialization. The network will cripple when we have a few more waves of new users, it doesn't matter if we have 2mb ore 32mb blocks. I'm very certain Segwit is the best possible update Bitcoin can have.
Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Lauda on March 20, 2017, 02:59:05 PM I "predicted" the usage of the name "Bitcoin Original" back in 2016 (although I can't bother to find the exact post). This is becoming really absurd. I wonder how long it takes to validate a "worst case" 32 MB block. ::)
Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Foxpup on March 20, 2017, 03:44:20 PM I "predcited" the usage of the name "Bitcoin Original" back in 2016 (although I can't bother to find the exact post). Here it is. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1360987.msg13850283#msg13850283)This is becoming really absurd. I wonder how long it takes to validate a "worst case" 32 MB block. ::) Let them find out the hard way. It's the only way they'll learn. I don't know why you're still trying to educate them.Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Kprawn on March 20, 2017, 03:55:01 PM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law.Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Yeah, the original reason was spam, not for any of the other reasons small blockers espouse. I disagree... the other reasons was the impact that this would have had on disk space needed for the Blockchain and also the spinoff affect of that to people that has to run a node. He knew this would lead to a situation where less people would be able to run a node and he wanted to avoid or delay that until the network has grown big enough. I think this was a very good idea to have nodes with smaller Block sizes at the start, when there were less transactions and people willing to experiment with this technology. 8) Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Sundark on March 20, 2017, 03:56:37 PM We have Bitcoin Unlimited. What will be next? Bitcoin United, Bitcoin Original or maybe Bitcoin Origin.
Why we can't learn how the biggest and the most successful altcoins are managing their forks/updates and implement similar solution? BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic? Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 03:59:46 PM BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic? many people still running those nodes, which is good. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 04:06:07 PM I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that. I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam? Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 04:10:58 PM I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that. I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam? Not sure what you are asking. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Iranus on March 20, 2017, 04:33:55 PM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin. " So 32x bigger blocks (32x more transactions) would correspond to about 32 = 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars." Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 04:37:48 PM I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that. I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam? Not sure what you are asking. We can agree that a blocksize spam filter does not work because it will cause more problems to people who genuinely want to use Bitcoin to transact than to spammers who seem to spam just for the sake of spamming. But an aggressive fee market will have the same effect... Raising fees will hinder genuine usage, hence my question: at what cost can the fee market handle spam attacks? Spammers seem to have no problem spending quite a few coins spamming to begin with... Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: 0xfff on March 20, 2017, 04:41:08 PM YES YES YES YES. I don't like segwit. I don't like bitcoin unlimited. This is the answer.
Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: nemgun on March 20, 2017, 04:46:14 PM It is good to get back to origins when you are uncertain about what to do, but i think it is a bad idea to apply them. Satoshi's statements are old, and the actual technologies was just theories when he was still comming in the forum back in 2013, only fools could decide to follow what he said, because it is a different time, with different actors and situations.
Better thinking to a reliable solution then applying old sollutions, or old predictions. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 05:03:36 PM I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that. I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam? Not sure what you are asking. We can agree that a blocksize spam filter does not work because it will cause more problems to people who genuinely want to use Bitcoin to transact than to spammers who seem to spam just for the sake of spamming. But an aggressive fee market will have the same effect... Raising fees will hinder genuine usage, hence my question: at what cost can the fee market handle spam attacks? Spammers seem to have no problem spending quite a few coins spamming to begin with... Great question and I do not know the answer. But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 05:21:20 PM Great question and I do not know the answer. But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack. Unfortunately no proposal seems to solve this, neither temporarily nor permanently. But yes, I can also agree that scaling at least won't make it worse. I've since took the time to read more carefully the link on the OP. The ideas are good, but the end goal is slightly bit unrealistic. Just because Metcalfe's Law has been more or less followed this far it doesn't mean the patter will repeat itself. Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all... Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: FiendCoin on March 20, 2017, 05:41:38 PM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ I'm glad to see you're looking for other solutions than just shilling for BTU. We have Bitcoin Unlimited. What will be next? Bitcoin United, Bitcoin Original or maybe Bitcoin Origin. Why we can't learn how the biggest and the most successful altcoins are managing their forks/updates and implement similar solution? BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic? How about Bitcoin Prime ;D I fear its really not going to matter what solution to scaling we end up with because we are facing a far more dangerous problem called CENTRALIZATION. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Lauda on March 21, 2017, 09:39:36 AM I "predcited" the usage of the name "Bitcoin Original" back in 2016 (although I can't bother to find the exact post). Here it is. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1360987.msg13850283#msg13850283)Let them find out the hard way. It's the only way they'll learn. I don't know why you're still trying to educate them. I don't want the newbies to fall for the false teachings of Jehovah's witnesses. :-\YES YES YES YES. I don't like segwit. I don't like bitcoin unlimited. This is the answer. This is almost worse than 'emergent consensus'. You don't really have a valid reason to dislike Segwit that much TBH.Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all... It is a bad idea; as simple as that.Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Xester on March 21, 2017, 09:49:31 AM I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case: Enter "Bitcoin Original". https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee. Well it is not clear yet but after reading I was shocked that satoshi programmed bitcoin to have huge blocks. But anyway if segwit will be used as code in the mining then I do hope that the mining fee will decrease and the transaction speed will increase. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: AngryDwarf on March 21, 2017, 10:00:42 AM There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee. They can already do this now. They can reduce the maximum block size produced by either using a command line parameter, or by setting a lower size in policy.h and compiling there own software. It is not a protocol breaker. They can't increase it with the current enforced protocol, but past actions have indicated a willingness to increase blocksize with demand (until it hit the hard limit). Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Carlton Banks on March 21, 2017, 10:45:33 AM What's the need for this when BU is oh-so popular with real users, and not just with the shill accounts or sybil nodes? ;D
Desperate, jonald. You're SLIPPING homie Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: gredisgold88 on March 21, 2017, 12:19:01 PM stop all mining bitcoin and flock moved to the mining altcoin, ASIC will die slowly, and if this happens then bitcoin will die slowly. turning to traders for the moment, the right time to move to altcoin and waiting for the continuation bitcoin unlimited. bitcoin original hopefully will not disappear and still has a high price, if the price of bitcoin fell to $ 10 for bitcoin unlimited, is a fear of its own.
Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: jonald_fyookball on March 21, 2017, 01:24:41 PM There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee. They can already do this now. They can reduce the maximum block size produced by either using a command line parameter, or by setting a lower size in policy.h and compiling there own software. It is not a protocol breaker. They can't increase it with the current enforced protocol, but past actions have indicated a willingness to increase blocksize with demand (until it hit the hard limit). Right -- with BU , miners can either go for larger OR smaller blocks, whatever is more profitable and that is fine. It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter. Title: Re: If you want bigger blocks but hate BU... Post by: Carlton Banks on March 21, 2017, 01:30:34 PM It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter. Sorry to burst your liar-tarian non-aggression principle bubble Peter, sorry, I mean Jonald, but the entire point of Bitcoin's consensus rules is to force certain values and parameters on the network SLIPPING |