Bitcoin Forum

guys, stop swearing, we need all three types of bitcoins at the same time: small blocks BTC, medium blocks BCH and large blocks BSV

We only need the king here since the forks are only splitting the community into different directions and making the crypto world more complicated than it already is. Bitcoin is continuously being improved thanks to LN development, Segwit adoption etc which is why the small block issue is not such a big deal.

the foolish mindset is that the propaganda machine loves to advertise this:
btc = 1mb legacy small blocks forever
alt= gigabyte blocks

the reasonable and common sense is where things should go back to what btc was 2009-2015 (incremental growth)
2009 0.25
2013 0.5
2014 0.75
2015 1mb
future <incremental growth>

the only reason btc halted at 1mb legacy is to force a utility limitation of a legacy 2in-2out tx of only allowing under 3000tx a block. while allowing slightly more LN gateway/ramp(segwit) tx's
yet even this is a limited amount of how many LN open/close sessions can occur.
all in an attempt to deburden bitcoin of actual bitcoin utility and make people move to other networks of alts/pegged tokens

we only have and need one bitcoin and that is the bitcoin that we already see everywhere. anything else with different names such as bitcoin-cash, bitcoin-satoshi-vision, bitcoin-gold, bitcoin-silver, bitcoin-unlimited,... and about 100 more are useless altcoins that were created for pump and  dumping. if you check their blockchain you can obviously see that nobody is even using them as their blocks barely contain more than 5 transactions!

if you want to argue about "bitcoin" blockchain then it is a different discussion and you need to remove the altcoins from your topic.

I find this graph particularly telling in terms of what difference the maximum size of blocks actually makes:

https://coin.dance/blocks/image/growth.png

Notice how, despite supporting larger blocks, the fork coins still aren't growing their overall blockchain size as quickly as Bitcoin is.  Those other coins could set their blocks to 1 GB per block, but it wouldn't make any difference in practice if the demand isn't there.  But if Bitcoin increases the size of its blocks, even a little, people are likely to use that additional space and the overall size of the blockchain could grow even faster than it currently is.  That's why non-mining full nodes on this chain are being cautious and not permitting larger increases.

bitcoin gave itself to the mercy of altcoins because at that time there was neither BCH nor BSV



https://b.radikal.ru/b00/1905/c8/5d5bb2022bb0.jpg (http://www.radikal.ru)

Big Block
http://www.badasscars.com/cartimages/prd_lg_10.jpg


A single Bitcoin Cash address is responsible for nearly 50% of the network’s transactions in the past month
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/category/cryptocurrency/

This guy (OP) likes to post the same comment and pictures in 3 different threads at the same time. That's why his words about swearing are out of context. I really think he just copy/pastes the same stuff in multiple threads because he doesn't actually a whole lot to say. Either that or he's a spambot.

He posts the same misinformative nonsense in thread after thread.

We get it, OP. You hate bitcoin. That's fine, just take into consideration that this forum probably isn't for you.

ETH was grew not because Vitalik is a genius, but because it is the least of evils for migration, Vitalik looks the most adequate. And the proportion of ETH was always like xrp and ltc average, then so be it then. What do you think to what will continue the flow of domination?

and from a realistic perspective bitcoin produces 1.2 MB blocks while BCH produces 1 KB blocks and BSV 500 byte blocks so bitcoin does have bigger blocks :P


centralized coins always get pumped better and since ETH is not just a token people invest but also a platform that thousands of scammers create easy tokens on to sell to newbies, the price of it grows even more and as ICOs die it also dies with them.

4 MB of weight that Bitcoin has is a very large block.

Vitalik is a very competent con artist

Ethereum is a premined scam.


1)   Vitalik and many others in the Ethereum space are known scammers. Vitalik is not an idiot thus he should have known better than pitch something as ridiculous as quantum mining to potential investors. This is a snake oil salesman pitching technical nonsense  to the credulous.
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/08/17/gregory-maxwell-vitalik-buterin-ran-quantum-computer-scam/

https://archive.fo/VZbPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkUpZkeqhF4


2) ETH is an illegal security according to the Howey test with a premine of 72 million eths. They purposely misled investors by suggesting merely 12 million gifted premine ignoring the 60 million they sold. Misleading total supply graphs in their prospectus.

3) Vitalik and many other have been falsely representing Ethereum and misleading others over and over again. example - pitching turing completeness as the valuable aspect of ETh , now pivoting away from that and saying it was never about turing completeness but "rich statefulness"

4) Ethereum is a pointless project that will lead to no efficiency because there is no censorship risk in code execution. If a project has no hope of ever creating an efficiency(like bitcoin has found with regulatory arbitrage) than every company and project will ultimately fail in its ecosystem. Are you trying to suggest that someday in the future there will be censorship risk in code execution? If not than what purpose does Ethereum solve if it comes with a horrible tradeoff of an extremely large attack surface and huge scaling problems?
5) Advertising immutability and unstoppable contracts that were than immediately reversed with multiple hard forks.

6)   For goodness sake the inflation distribution rate or final algo is not even defined and people are investing in this. This is insane and basically amounts to faith in vitalik and his team, while at the same time newbs are misled into believing eth is decentralized.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUUVlatCvp0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCiHTJRbIf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgFXqVpGDNg


https://medium.com/startup-grind/i-was-wrong-about-ethereum-804c9a906d36


https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxtVLjCxPDU

If the limit is 4million units of weight or 4MB or weight than you are speaking of a block size reduction , not increase. Perhaps you mean 8MB of weight like we saw in segwit2x. This is not needed anytime soon as we are only using at most 50% of segwit onchain capacity now https://segwit.space/

Other altcoins can continue to raise their block limits to absurd levels for marketing reasons ... as we can see from almost empty blocks , few are buying their propaganda

and thats the point
using fear of gigabyte blocks to suggest there actually would be gigabyte blocks was the empty argument
when bitcoin went from 0.25mb to 0.5mb, then to 0.75mb and then to 1mb... it was not an instant jump. even with the availability, it was a curve of natural growth.

its like buying a computer with X ram
if you know the pc needs 2gb ram for the OS. you dont just buy a pc with 4gb ram knowing as soon as you install office and an antivirus your at a limit as soon as you open the tabs up.. you instead buy a PC with 8-16gb ram knowing that theres is available spare space(buffer) to allow for growth without having to instantly complain you hit the limit soon after.

core keeping legacy down but trying to promote the LN gateway tx format is not to inspire bitcoin utility growth/adoption. but purely to inspire not increasing bitcoin utility and infact decreasing bitcoin utility while trying to promote deburdening bitcoin network in favour for other networks

and dont rebut that 'non-mining full nodes on bitcoins network are being cautious and not permitting larger increases'.. as the foolish thing is those very same people allowed a contentious hard fork in summer 17, allowed hard drive bloat to increase, allowed new wishy washy code. yet non of which actually caused a increase allowance of legacy tx throughput.. thus that was not 'cautious' that was 'cunning'

and dont rebut that 'non-mining full nodes on bitcoins network are being cautious and not permitting larger increases'.. as the foolish notion that nodes are being economic majors and wanting to aid mining pools to earn more fee's by having a fee market.. when mining pools if they really wanted to earn more would only accept tx's of $1 and force users to pay more. but instead some pools throw any transactions in randomly and some do empty bocks which mean pools dont care about fee's

No, it isn't the point at all.  The point is that no coin has proven the viability of larger blocks because those coins that supposedly have them are totally unable to fill them on a regular basis.  It doesn't matter if they can fill a large block once.  Or even a few times.  They have to do it consistently over a long period of time without losing nodecount before it proves that it can work.

but that is the point. previous fear is increasing the blocks=instant fill=causing pain.
its better to have a buffer and allow progressive growth. rather then stiffling a limit to pressure people not to grow

node count does not = increase/decrease tx count. users just downgrade to lite wallets and transactions still flow.
the reason altcoins dont prosper is that they dont bother promoting their altcoins to merchants to give the altcoin actual utility.
but bitcoin is starting to deburden bitcoin of merchant use with its false propaganda that blockchains are bad, to try promoting alternative networks that dont use blockchains

Blockchains need to be decentralised, or they're no better than a centralised database.  Centralised databases are bad. 

there is no decentralization, 80% of mining takes place in China, bitcoin was created not for the sake of fighting with the government, but in order to prevent the emission in connection with the financial crisis of 2008

This is false, ever since China cracked down on mining off of free hydro in China many ASICs left china. Look at the pool breakdown to get a rough idea.

Also the UASF/Segwit2x fight with these miners proved that the economic majority is really in charge.


It was precisely government regulation and policies that led to this financial crisis. If you don't believe so than go ahead and try and get a government to approve a sovereign cryptocurrency that competes with their fiat and let me know how well you do. Just the banks, right? Governments should be interested in protecting their citizens wealth against these banks by allowing capital flight and safe harbor , right?

2015 community was happy with 10k nodes where a few thousand were different brands.

the node count has NOT decreased. luke Jr says there are 100k nodes now.. so stop with the fud about node decrease
also
about centralisation.. back in 2015 community was happy with a mix of brands. but now the codebase is 99% core.. meaning though DISTRIBUTED.. the codebase is CENTRALISED

oh and if you want to pretend LN makes things better. things like neutrino for LN does the opposite.
but have a nice day

In 2017 the number was over 200k at times.




From 2009 to mid 2011 almost 100% was running a single implementation. Bitcoin or Bitcoin QT.

In 2015 many implementations existed, just like today, but also just like today almost no one uses them. Bitcoin is a consensus network where almost everything must run in lockstep as Satoshi said.  If anything more use of other implementations exist today with miners using custom templates and companies like purse.io using bcoin. Luke's stats don't show this.

BSV does its best to work with government approval

BSV also is not specifically sanctioned by any governments and would not have stopped the economic crisis if it existed back than.

Blocksize limits are moot, what matters is txs throughput per the resource costs to scale Bitcoin.

Signature aggregation(17-40% more onchain throughput) and more privacy is coming soon to Bitcoin .

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-May/016914.html



In addition this would allow 17% to 40% more tx space in blocks(with signature aggregation as schnorr alone doesn't do this, just allows for this) without increasing the resource demands on nodes like raising the blocksize limit does.

More info - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-power-of-schnorr-the-signature-algorithm-to-increase-bitcoin-s-scale-and-privacy-1460642496/

Scaling Bitcoin 100% onchain is also extremely silly as we need to bring Bitcoin to the world securely and the math just simply doesn't work out when you scale all onchain.

graft root is completely different proposal, this is taproot + schnorr sigs . Good luck with your less fungible coin, may as well use USD, I welcome regulatory arbitrage

actually 2009-2011 people had their own independant nodes. they all done their own individual bug fixes run them and then passed them around via lines of code on IRC, forums and other places

these days its the opposite. bugs are listed on github, code created on github, tested on a testnet and 'ack' into a central repo before then distributed
if you want proof. pre2011 gavin andresen used github.. satoshi never used github. he used sourceforge.
others had their own forks and then passed on lines of code via this forum mailing lists and irc which devs then added to their own imps
it wasnt until 2011 until people started using github more centrally. but people still had their own forks which they linked to gavins repo
...


as for differing brands. that does not mean different ACTIVE rules. it means same CURRENT rules and then separately proposing what a new rule should be.(pre-empting the nonsense FUD that differing brands=instant orphan conflicts)

but just having everyone follow 99% core. opens up vulnerabilities where core can without knowing.. or knowingly, add a bug that affects 99% by default.

its like a woman.. if she has HIV, if she then has offspring theres a high chance her offspring will get HIV.. but if she adopts/fosters from other families those future generations have less chance of having HIV
so

I linked to it... silly man.



Liquid, RSK both exist today


why are you mentioning something offtopic? Taproot involves work from many people.

Bitcoin development was extremely centralized back than as satoshi wrote a lot of the code and even slipped in 2 hard forks without users knowing. Sourceforge wasn't that different than github and a centralized repo people downloaded Bitcoin from.



There are benefits and drawbacks to node diversification. Best trade offs like I do is to run multiple independent implementations and cross check for consensus. Also keep in mind that there are many different versions of core and a new bug won't necessarily effect older versions of core like we have seen in the past

I don't know why you keep bringing up something completely unrelated to what we are discussing. Graftroot is not being adopted in Bitcoin, Taproot is.

Taproot is what has the privacy improvements I spoke about. You seem to be very confused bringing up unrelated proposals for no reason

It's silly to compare obscure, little-used forks to Bitcoin. The fact that nobody uses an unpopular altcoin with big blocks isn't evidence that big blocks are safe for Bitcoin. These are apples and oranges.

There is a strong contingent of Bitcoin users (and Core developers) that want higher fees. Small blocks are a means to force fees higher through a fee market, which makes the mining incentive much more viable. This way, we aren't completely dependent on growing to a billion users paying who hardly pay any fees at all per capita.

If we keep raising block size beyond demand, then miners can never account for fees in their revenue stream even as the block subsidy disappears because there will never be any fee pressure. Everyone will pay close to 0 and miners will continue subsidizing the entire network despite smaller and smaller revenue. This leads to a situation where we might see large swings in hashpower because mining would be so speculative and unsustainable. Big blocks simply make no sense from an economic standpoint unless you want to switch to a design where inflation continues forever -- i.e. increasing the supply of bitcoins.

look at my original post , it only discusses taproot. You brought up graftroot. your quote you took even shows me talking about taproot. you are backpedaling because you are embarrassed you didn't know the difference between the 2 . You also are spreading multiple lies like saying sidechains do not exist.

i predicted a core defender would come out with the stupid 'core defenders want a fee war to benefit miners' .. it was tooo obvious it was gonna come up
again if MINING POOLS cared and wanted a fee war they would only accept transactions of X fee no matter what the blocksize was or transaction count was.
seems its only core defenders that want a fee war, not mining pools.. yet its the mining pools that get the funds so why oh why should core be pushing a fee war pretending to help mining pools if mining pools are not interested....
hint: cor dont care about mining pools. after all core have been loudly fighting against mining pools.. core only care about deburdening bitcoin of utility to promote alternate networks.
core devs are in DEBT to a tune of a few hundred million and need to promote commercial networks so that core investors can get some returns.. its nothing to do with aiding mining pools. its about getting core devs out of VC funded debt

I don't mean to nit-pick, or is it a nit-pick, but there's no "three types of Bitcoin", there only one Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV are altcoins.

I'm confident even franky1 would agree.

Plus the debate of needing Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Cash SV is not against Bitcoin, but against other altcoins like Litecoin or Dogecoin.

the way i used to view it was 2009-2015 there was only 1 international bitcoin. then developer wars broke out
the way i used to view it was 1600-1800 there was only 1 dollar. then civil wars broke out

then came about US dollar ((main 'reserve petrol dollar) btc)
then came about canadian dollar (vers(he canadian) bch)
then came about australian dollar (wright(hes aussie) bsv)

but in common communication when people say 'dollar' the auto/default is to think of U.S
but in common communication when people say 'bitcoin' the auto/default is to think of BTC

but its still best to clarify which nation people are referring to especially if they refer to the less popular ones

the reason i compare it to nations, is the same reason that CORE should NOT own 'brand bitcoin' no one should own 'bitcoin'

1. Canada and Australia never had civil wars with the U.S. so your analogy is invalid.

2. Right, so most of the time a dollar is USD as bitcoin is BTC. If you're talking about a less popular currency, you should distinguish its name for the sake of clarity. That way nobody will think you are trying to trick them into buying BCH or CAD. You can't just try to sell CAD or AUD under the name "dollar," as that would be highly misleading. You cant claim "but we're dollar too" as your defense.

3. Nobody is saying Core owns the term bitcoin except you. Its just highly misleading and deceptive to call things that aren't bitcoin "bitcoin." You're free to do it and we're free to point out your deceptive practices. Besides, the market has already spoken on which coin is bitcoin and it's bitcoin.

If your wage is cut in halve every 4 years, how long before you look for a new income source.

Big block miners have ability to generate alternative income thorough increasing transaction fees. Ultimately it is the main source.

A modern farmer can not survive just with his products, it is only possible with subsidy's.

Then Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV are not altcoins, but are also Bitcoin? How should we define what makes Bitcoin "Bitcoin"? Is another minority forking away again, and calling their coin "Bitcoin", also another "Bitcoin"?

Because if I call my fork a "Bitcoin", and sell it to someone that expected to get Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a scam? Or because I call my coin also "Bitcoin", I can justify that he received a Bitcoin?

You're assuming the price of bitcoin remains static. It does not. The last bitcoin won't be mined for over a hundred years so the problem of miners having to rely solely on fees isn't exactly "pressing."

1. your getting to historically anal with the analogy rather than taking it as a simple context example of something different to explain it in different terms even a grandma could cope with
2. aussie dollar is dollar too. australians do not scream out AUD they just say dollar.. canadians dont shout out CAD they just say dollar. but general international communication when saying dollar is default u.s
it seems your too anal wanting core to be the only 'bitcoin'
by the way, i personally am not interested in the alts/forks like bch bsv.. so dont even try acting like im the one misleading or selling or tricking..

3.as for 'what is bitcoin' the general guide is if it contains 'satoshi's stash' of coins and has code history that leads back to satoshis 2009 code. then it deserves to atleast be in the family.
if however the blockhistory was wiped back to the genesis block and had no similar chain history then it wouldnt deserve to be in the family

TL:DR no one is saying that other coins are "THE" bitcoin. but trying to infer that cores controlled protocol should be "THE ONLY bitcoin" is just more totalitarian. so relax and just put it into the same context as 'dollar' which even grandma can understand the difference between australian and u.s without big debate/stress

Bitcoin obviously needs big blocks. It is quite a bit worrisome to me that no blocksize increase was made during the "slow" period in late 2019 or early 2019. The down part of the market would be the least contentious time to implement a hard fork to give bitcoin room to grow on the next bitcoin boom. Looks like we are going to head into the next boom with the same transaction capacity (well a tiny little bit higher thanks to greater segwit adoption) as what was hurting bitcoin during the last boom. This is a serious problem.

Bitcoin doesn't need to go crazy and have 32mb or 128mb blocks or whatever the bitcoin-altcoin-forks have, but it very clearly needs to increase its transaction throughput capacity, and soon! I really thought there would be a concerted effort to increase that during the downtime of the market this cycle. Sadly there was no effort whatsoever.

Even if you think LN is gonna be the main use for everyday transactions in the future for bitcoin, that future is not now, and bitcoin needs more space in its blocks right now, and especially in the next couple of years as the bull market heats up. No amount of segwit adoption or exchange transaction batching is gonna keep blocks open and fees low during this bull run. Again, even if you are of the mind that LN is THE answer for bitcoin, the blocksize puts a severe restriction on getting money into the LN. For LN onboarding alone bitcoin needs larger blocksizes, and even if LN is the vast majority of transactions in the future, bitcoin txs need more blockspace NOW and even later when LN takes over normal on-chain non-LN-onboarding/offboarding txs will still be around of course, for moving between wallets or moving around large amounts of money or just one offs so even during LN non-LN associated onchain txs will need more space.

The only answer is to increase blocksize. The number of hard forks of bitcoin should be limited to a very small number very close to one, so bitcoin doesn't become some absurd untrustable constantly changing thing like BCH. I think either there needs to be a single hard fork that implements some automated blocksize increases or a very small number of increases in the future.

I haven't ever heard of an automated blocksize increase discussed, I've only ever heard of one-offs bitcoin discussed, but I think the automated increase is the way to go. That way only one hard fork is ever needed and blocksize increases become a stable thing that doesn't need to be debated anymore. I think the way to do it would be at every halving there is also some blocksize increase, perhaps starting at a 4x this next halving, and then each halving the blocksize increase itself halves, so it'd be 400% increase, 200%, 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, and so on. Or adjust these numbers however you see fit, the numbers I put in here would have bitcoin blocksize (blockweight) reach a limit at around 19x the current capacity, though it should probably be a bit higher than that if bitcoin is going to become globally used in the decades to come. This would also allow blocksize to increase as network speeds increase so that propagation wouldn't be a problem so bitcoin would never be in danger of not being decentralized, and it would also storage tech time to keep up so that the bitcoin blockchain continues to be relatively small compared to a reasonable cost of storing the blockchain.

But we have to keep in mind that "affordable" is something that will vary greatly by region.  People in developing countries should also be able to run a full node if they want to. 



Okay, I'll bite.  Who's your special friend, then?

but you should keep in mind that  "affordable" is something that will vary greatly by region.  People in developing countries should also be able to pay to make a real bitcoin transaction without it costing them an hour of labour

You don't get it. Who cares what mining pools want? The fee market is not some sort of gift to miners, any more than the original block subsidy was. The fee market exists to benefit Bitcoin users because it ensures a continuing honest mining incentive.

If block size always has a "buffer" beyond demand, everyone will pay ~zero. Why would anyone pay when there is free space?

In your vision, block rewards will eventually diminish to nothing and the entire mining incentive will cease to exist. That would make for an incredibly useless and insecure Bitcoin. No thanks.

mining incentive... wait. but you said you dont care about miners incentive



firstly, fee's have nothing to do with security. paying extra does not make your tx any more valid/rule following than any other tx.
if pools decide to make blocks that dont fit the rules. they dont get archived by nodes. thus pools cant really break rules anyway. all a pool can do is choose which tx's to collate

in my vision a fee war proposing $20/tx now is stupid. we dont need to worry about fee's for decades. so concentrate on adoption now and actual bitcoin utility and let the fee's play out in decades.
after all if pools run out of funds in decades. they can always themselves refuse to include 'free tx'
a block does not need to be filled for a pool to only want to include the most expensive txs'.. a pool can ven with 20% filld blocks decide to only accept tx's of X fee

its like first class aeroplanes. half the seats are empty but the airline doesnt give away free tickets

If blocks are mostly empty and miners are not confirming 10 Sat / Byte and under fees because they choose to not accept low fee txs than another miner will come along and include those low fee txs as there is an incentive to do so.

If a fee market doesn't exist than there is no one paying a premium for priority block inclusion and much less is collected in fees. A fee market is precisely what allows lower fees to be included at a later time and higher security for those who want priority.

This isn't hypothetical, already Bcash sometimes has less security with Coinbase reward and their fees than Bitcoin fees alone at times. This is why Bcash has had to move away from the whitepaper and is principally using developer checkpoints and only using PoW at the chaintip due to being so insecure. As we have seen with BSV this doesn't stop reorgs or double spends occuring which will start to happen with Bcash too once their hashrate % drops from very low 3-4% to dangerously low 0.5-1%

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00951358/document



Delaying the fee market simply is a kick the can problem ,which would also delay the efforts to work on more efficient and more private 2nd layer solutions. We need to start the slow and gradual transition to fees paying for security vs Inflation. We always knew this transition had to occur. It has been proven that Bitcoin did not need more blockspace because the market of users and businesses still aren't using all the space from the last upgrade segwit(max 50% are segwit) and soon we will see another upgrade of 17-40% more txs per block onchain with signature aggregation.

Any programmer knows to scale efficiently it is better optimize the code first before throwing more resources at the problem and this is what Bitcoin is doing. Upgrades like segwit, taproot, schnorr sig aggregation are exactly what helps bitcoin be more securely scalable in the future when we choose to upgrade Bitcoin from 4 MB of weight to a higher number.

1. yes another miner will come along and include those low fee tx. but that other miner would need to have adequate hashpower to win the race too

2. again theres no need for a fee market this decade

3. making a block capacity scarce does not = causing a fee premium. pools as you already said could choose to include low fee's because they see othr pools include high fee's.. pools can pick anything they like.
they do NOT need to fill a block. they could happily make a block with just 10tx of $1 each until peopl cotton on to pay $1. again you dont need to fill a block to make a pool only accept $1 fee's..

4. WHEN pools start caring more about fee's, THEY will adapt. but that is not any time soon

think about the economic lunacy of excuses core devs use just to tempt people to deburden bitcoin to use ln
left hand: paying $1+ to make 1 transaction a day is perfectly acceptable
right hand: paying $30 a month internet bill is unacceptable

The incentives are such that they will gain adequate hashpower because other miners are leaving money on the table thus giving an incentive for competition to take a portion of the marketshare.




What is the math on this? Bitcoin drops to 6.25 BTC inflation next year. This is a huge security drop off.




The research paper I linked to goes into this specific assumption and directly addresses it and mathematically proves this to be untrue. Go ahead and read it, as your quickness of your response means you likely did not. Seems like you care more about propping up your altcoin than learning what the truth is if you are not willing to read the paper that directly addresses your incorrect assumptions



Pools don't care about fees? You are absurd.

i was simplyfying ur scenario, but in actual fact a second pool does not even know what tx's a first pool is collating while its collating/hashing. so the second pool can equally be working on the same high tx fees.. as all that matters is who wins the race.
again while rewards are $62k pools dont care about ~3000 tx of current 20cents $600. they wouldnt care much about $1 fees ($3k) as the $62k reward is more important. again pools would rather 'empty block' to gain a few second advatage to get the $62k. than risk collating a list of high fee's that not only is only a couple % bonus. but also risks them not even getting the main $62k prize.

theres no point in wasting sconds to hope for a $3k bonus if your not gonna win the race to claim the $62k+$3k.. you might aswell just hope to get the $62k and not care about being fee picky


6.25btc does not mean security drop off. 6.25 is not even inflation. its deflation.
security is the same. if a pool was to make a block thats not acceptable to rules. nodes reject it. it does not matter what fee's/reward were involved
pools are under no rule to include 3000tx a block. they can empty block. they can only do segwit, only do legacy, only do tx of 250byte. only do tx of 1000byte+.. pools are not forced to add tx's to a block





ok imagine it this way. imagin ur at the olympics, its the 100m race. prize is $62k for winning. but if when the race trigger fires there is a side bonus that if you change your shoes to wear nikes new brand sneakers and then run. nike will pay you $3k extra,, but you gotta win the race too..
so ur at the start line.. you can just run and have good odds of getting the $62k by just running when you hear the starter pistol.. or risk it and wait for the starter pistol and try to quickly swap shoes in the hopes you still win the race to get $65k
which do you risk... $62k easier or $65k harder........

now to pre-empt your reply
"but what happens when the $62k reward is gone"
my reply
"ask your grand children, as its something their generation would be involved in"
did you know that when rewards were 50coin, the fiat was under $50
did you know that when rewards were 25coin, the fiat was under $15,000
did you know that when rewards were 12.5coin, the fiat was under $250,000
did you know that when rewards will be 6.25coin, the fiat can be much higher than now

the coin decrease does not mean fiat reward decrease.

You are sure making a lot of assumptions that Bitcoin is going to keep appreciation more than the coinbase reward dropping off.

You also are refusing to read the research paper that proves your assumptions wrong.

Go ahead and read it and tell me what exact sentence is incorrect and where their math is wrong specifically.

again the paper mentions that a blocksize limit is needed t cause a fee war.
airlines dont always fill their seats. but they would never give away their first class seats for free

ever been on a train and seen the first class cabin nearly empty but the economy class crambed.. same thing

having only X seats doesnt mean they will always be filled
charging XX fee doesnt mean people will always be willing to pay
there is nothing forcing a pool to fill or empty a block. there is nothing forcing a pool to add tx's while risking the delay causing risk of losing the race

a train is not gonna wait at a station until the first class carriage is filled before travelling. they would prefer to travel ontime and not risk a 'late penalty'

The paper specifically discusses miners creating set minimum fee per tx and why that cannot work , a point you keep ignoring

well you go treat that paper as your bible, and ill use my own research and stats and experience as the formation of what i will continue to go by.

by the way, that paper has lots of if's and assumptions too. so take it with a grain of salt.
just because someone puts a fancy title page and calls it a 'paper' doesnt mean its well researched

transactions having a fee does not guarantee acceptance in a block
transactions having a fee+x does not guarantee acceptance in a block before a transaction thats just fee-x
pools are free to choose a transaction to include for any reason they please. so fe's and blocksize are not things the network should mess with because it doesnt help/coerce a pool into doing what a network wants.

again a pool could develop its own fee rationale and cause users to adapt.
EG pools could stop accepting segwit transactions unless they pay the same price a legacy tx pays
EG pools could stop accepting legacy transactions priced at a 4x segwit comparative and only accept legacy tx's with cheap fees at a 1:1 comparative

pools can decide to ignore certain transaction formats like LN CLTV's

you and your papers assumptions that pools automatically will grab the highest tx and aim to fill blocks is the biggest empty assumption of all

That's the value proposition of altcoins like Dogecoin or Litecoin. Cheaper transactions. It's also the value proposition of Bitcoin Cash, your "other Bitcoin". Wouldn't it work out well for those cryptocurrencies if Bitcoin's block size is small?

https://d.radikal.ru/d20/1905/13/b3d9df24878b.jpg (http://www.radikal.ru)




Mastercard 56000 tps
BTC 8 tps
BCH 80 tps
BSV 800 tps now, 14000 tps st July and 3000000000 tps if future

Yes, Bitcoin does not have to be "peer to peer digital cash". It has moved on from Satoshi's "original vision". I'm glad we can agree on that.


Your assumption is that pools will always do what they please, that's impractical because game theory.


That's a very huge assumption that all pools, together, will ignore the transactions that they don't like, together. But if that happens, that's censorship, then Bitcoin has failed.

all of them are inferior to my fork called Bitcoin Pursuer. I have increased the block size to 100 TB so my bitcoin (which I claim to be the real bitcoin) has a TPS of 166000000000000. the roadmap is to increase the blocksize to 100000 TB so that we can increase the TPS to 166000000000000000 and be able to handle more transactions.

I really don't think that I will be able to choose any of these. There is a particular use in every type of block you are going to use. The best things you can do with a middle block can some times not work with big blocks. I think you should be more specific in this thread.

Its very rare that the blocks are full.  Sure it can happen sometimes when the price surges but that is not common.  In the future we may need more scaling if lightning network doesn't work out as planned.  I'm not against those big block coins entirely and it may be worth holding some.

How? By flooding the mempool? 8)


That doesn't make sense. In that "scenario", blocks would be empty, and Lightning would be in-demand to its maximum limit.


You assume ALL miners will be cooperating together to undermine the system. But if that happens, then Bitcoin has failed.

Size does matter
https://i.imgur.com/L9ljcqM.gif

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters. 8)

For some fees matter, 10k times more expensive is not something many can accept. Harsh economic reality.
https://sv.coin.dance/block
https://i.imgur.com/RQSl8t6.png
s

^ proof that most core fanboys dont want bitcoin to be useful. and prefer people to go use other networks for transacting (facepalm)

You say that not many can accept it, but surely the fact that the cheaper chain still doesn't handle as many transactions as this one means there are other factors to consider?  I personally don't understand why people are in such a hurry to imitate the chains that have empirically fewer users.

Plus, if more people actually used the cheaper chains, they likely wouldn't be as cheap as they currently are.   

There is a thing called scaling, it does wonders.
It translates like this:
If a gravel road is to crowed you make it wider and engineer the surface (tarmac it), not keep the pot-hole gravel road and build rail tracks next to it where users commute with  handcars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handcar).

BTC has been developed to an unworkable coin on purpose, especially now as the SEC dealt the final blow to LN as every users must buy license and comply with AML/KYC (unless routing is not offered) and also ever user must scan ID.
"Set in stone" on the blockchain.
https://bico.media/1f8e0c5f47b470f3df0f06f3d2939adccc1f2b7dafa0b4a32a69663cda2c6760.pdf


Most core fanatics just exit scam now al-la Charlie Lee. A few newb's get burned along the way.
https://i.imgur.com/FuHa3tc.jpg

lesson one: emphasis its important lesson.
whether a altcoin can handle 5ktx or 50ktx it wont get 5k-50k if that coin has no merchant use.
so altcoins have more potential (buffer) but not utilising it due to not having the merchant adoption.

however a certain group of core devs and their fanboys see bitcoin as having the merchant approval, but then trying to stifle bitcoins utility for those merchants by way of fee wars, limiting transaction throughput and promoting that if people dont like those stifling tactics they can just go use another network.

i personally do not understand why anyone who pretends to be a bitcoin(actually they are just core fans but afraid to admit it) fan are in such a hurry to ruin bitcoins utility to promote other networks of less security

I agree with something here. The world is simple, is the people who make it complicated.

Why not try to improve the Blockchain technology and spend that time inside that quest in something that can for sure change the world in the future than trying to create something new over one thing that already has years in the market and can be improved.

That is the whole point of it. People coming together to not only care about the financial aspect but to look at the whole picture and seek improvement for the human kind in all possible ways this technology could be implemented.

Wrong as usual.  Lesson one is that those securing the chain decide what Bitcoin is.  You need to learn that before you can even attempt to lecture on anything else.  But chances are, you never will wrap your feeble little mind around it.  When both non-mining full nodes and miners begin to consider more throughput, perhaps at that point, things might change in a way you approve of.  Until then, suck it.  You are wholly impotent and your views are barely represented on this network.  You lack support for even the most miniscule of changes you'd like to see.

But by all means keep calling those securing the chain "fanboys" and "sheep".  I'm sure that's going to win them over to your way of thinking.   ::)

We've had two years for people to decide that they don't like the direction Bitcoin is going in and leave the network in favour of one that functions in the way you'd like Bitcoin to work.  How many more years do you think it's going to take before it dawns on you that you are wrong?  Or are you just going to keep repeating your baseless scaremongering forever, even when it's abundantly clear that users are not fleeing en-masse to the coins with greater throughput (and weaker literally-everything-else)?

I used to argue that users would naturally follow the coin with the lowest fees.  You know what happened?  Reality proved me wrong and I chose to learn something from that. 

When will you learn?  (Obviously that's a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly "never".)

There's no bargaining involved.  People are simply running code to enforce the rules they want to see enforced.  You spouting whatever nonsense you are on an internet forum is not changing that.  If you think you can do better, where's the repository for your client?  How many users does it have?  Who's your special friend who apparently makes all the decisions? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139844.msg50934505#msg50934505)  Are they the lead dev?

I'm worried, if a large BSV block can't avoid ddos ​​attacks on the network. I know.  each block can create 36MB.  but a 1MB block is safer from network risk.  anyone can make a block with a limit of 1MB.  if more than 1MB, then invalid.  this maximum limit for :
1. maintaining consensus
2. avoiding decentralization of pool
3. making lots of full nodes

doomad poking the bear again with completely narrow visioned mindset. ill bite
it seems your idea of consensus and unity and community and proposals is, if you dont like it go find another coin.

however instead of finding another coin to just let core do as they please to bitcoin. many people will stay with the network and highlight the flaws that core implement and continue to try to ensure core dont just do as they please all the time.

being on the network with 99% core node control does not mean 99% core adoration. it just means lack of choice to remain on network without using undergraded/downgraded nodes

i know i know you would love it if those that despise core would just f**k off.. but thats where your failure to understand what blockchains and the solution to byzantine generals theory is all about.. again i have been telling you for months go learn it

diversity, community, consensus and the byzantine generals solution has nothing at all to do with "if you dont like it f**K off"
so stop defaulting to that rhetoric as your answer to what happens when core wants consensus for something. stop trying to promote that you applaud cores attempts at apartheid to get what they want, as all it is doing is showing you have no understanding or care for blockchains, bitcoin. and all you want to do is fanboy up to CORE

I don't care what miners want. I certainly care whether the network sustains the rational mining incentive (block rewards) built into the original design. It's simple to see that absent set mandatory fees, demand for block space needs to outpace supply for fees to be nonzero -- and certainly for fee revenue to replace the original 50 BTC per block subsidy. We need to put money on the table for miners to secure the chain. Hence the part of the quote that you removed:



As Satoshi once said, unconfirmed transactions are second class citizens. As he also once said, Bitcoin's design is such that fees are to fully replace the block subsidy. So if you want your transaction confirmed, you should pay a fee instead of assuming miners will collate your transaction into a block for free.

Miners aren't offering charity. If the block subsidy didn't exist now, miners would drop off the network en masse. In a couple more halvings, the block subsidy will be a small fraction of the current reward. Do you expect miners to secure the chain for less and less revenue, and eventually nothing? Are you okay with a situation where hash rate is spiraling downward, generations old hardware can be used to reorg the chain and attack the network, etc.?


85% of Bitcoin's supply has already been mined. In five years, the block subsidy will drop to a mere 6.25% of the original reward. Why do you assume we have decades to wait before dealing with this?

Then perhaps an explanation to elucidate the situation would clear things up?  Start at the beginning.  Which project are you referring to?  And where can I view this code?  I get that your forum persona is trying to come across as mysterious and edgy, but it's not helpful when trying to have an open discussion.  If there's some code, let's see it and go from there.

I prefer code and transparency.  I don't see how you're going to attract many users if you can't even tell us anything about it.

again you say you dont care what they want.. then explain if something aint done to satisfy pools they will react.. seems you do care.

but here is some economics your not really understanding.
imagine public transport. planes, trains and buses.
if the seats are empty the transport system DOES NOT give away free tickets/seats.
they dont charge a fe only when seats are full

the transport system doesnt need to remove seats to incentivise people to sit on seats.
all the transport system needs to do is charge a fee for every seat. but a fee people are HAPPY to pay

again no free tickets/seats. just not excessively priced seats due to removing seats to make it appear like a premuim scarce resource.

those fools that think making everything a scarce resource is the answer to 'value' are dumber than a dog owner thinking he can sell his dogs bowel product simply because his dog will only do a couple thousand produces in its lifetime.

if miners start to see the reward/$ conversion has not offset the reward halving, whereby in many decades the fee:reward ratio flips. then POOLS without needing to stifle block sizes can just stop collating free transactions and only accept transactions of X fee.. all without devs needing to pretend they are clever economists(because they are not)

any way. i dare you to go into ur town/city centre. wait for a public bus thats completely empty. and under your own economic theory, try to get on the bus for free because you think the only reason people pay to get on a bus is if its crowded. you wil learn that paying for something is not always about scarcity/limited resource

::)

Your reply is proof that big blockers don't care about the effects of big blocks on the network, or don't understand how Bitcoin works, OR they believe can go around the laws of physics. HAHA, and I'm the stupid one? 8)

your reply is proof you only read the reddit scripts of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" fud
my opinion is that the debate is not about actually having a blocks completely filled at gigabyte per block levels. because that wont be the case.
my opinion is that increasing the BUFFER to allow more transaction throughput is not the only way to achieve things.
increasing the buffer does not have to be a big jump especially not a 1mb legacy to 1gb legacy.. thats just stupid fear tactics

there are things like removing the witness scale factor wishy washy code. that way the 4mb block space can actually b a true 4mb blockspace

there is reducing the txsigop limit to reduce bloated transactions using up the space. thus instead of 5tx of bloat using up the limit. it would allow thousands of transactions through

theres including a fee formulae to punish the regular spammers without overcharging the infreqeunt users to the same amount. thus changing users habits.

all while promoting bitcoin network utility. rather than promoting to deburden bitcoin of utility to promote other networks

::)

No, never. My debate was never about "gigabyte blocks by midnight". Although the big blockers, like you, believe that the network can do a hard fork after hard fork to increase the block size as needed because Moore's Law, correct?

My debate is larger blocks demand better bandwidth, and latency to prevent node centralization. Plus big blockers ignore externalities.

Your reply is a desperate attempt to sidestep the facts that:

a) You have no code for half the things you want to implement
b) Your ideas have little support
c) Many users see you as a discredited troll
d) You think you can be part of a network while also being in a minority that runs code which is incompatible with the code the majority are running (and yet still believe you're in a position to tell us how consensus works)

"big blockers" typical echo chamber buzzword from a certain group. if you realised that increasing the transaction throughput can be alot more nuanced than just 'big blocks'. then you would understand more about methods of scaling bitcoin without reverting to the standard claptrap rhetoric of the echo chamber you subscribe to that just wants to propaganda one method

you dont need hard for after hard fork to increase blocksize/transaction throughput. you may have learned this if you were not reading the standard echo chambers and using the standard buzzwords of a certain group. this is why i ave kept saying to do some independent research as you are showing all the signs of being in that propaganda group.

better bandwidth? we are not in dialup era..
56kbit=4.2mbyte/10min
block header plus tx data is way less than 4mb

better latency? (dictionary: delay before transfer)
the only latency issue is mainly being told several different dataset formats other nodes want: stripped, filtered, neutrino and others. a full node should just send out the real full data other full nodes need. having a bunch of nodes that dont archive full data and cant relay full data but still foolishly be classed as 'full nodes' is the thing that will cause more centralisation than anything.

having nodes that dont hold signatures. or only hold prunned data cuts down the amount of real full syncable data. having these nodes connecting to full nodes become leachers while not being part of the main relay operation of the network.
code CAN be made to identify and classify these leacher nodes better and ensure priority 'latency' operations and bandwidth is given to full nodes rather than the leacher nodes.
EG if your node can handle 100 connections then you can have a 80/20 split of full/leacher
EG if your node can handle 10 connections then you can have a 8/2 split of full/leacher

there are many many ways that are not just the 'gigabyte by midnight' rhetoric

its like the tx fee's code can be made to not just treat every tx to the same ~premium, but make spammers pay different than infrequent users. thus making people care/change habits and actually understand bitcoin more

your reply is just personal stuff.. by the way.. d) and a) .. how can i not have code for A but then have code for D...
flip/flop? .. let that be your head scratching conundrum for the day

also if you knew what consensus is. then you would know 'my code'(active) is not incompatible. also 'my code'(proposals)  for half the things i want to implement is not active. because consensus has not activated it. which is where you are mis understanding alot of things.
hint: proposed vs active (2 separate things)
also i have not publicly released 'my code' proposals for multiple reasons. but your narrowminded narrative that im a minority or just a single person and everyone else is a core loyalist, is your failing.

Because you hate softforks and (if you could code) would deliberately code it in a way that wasn't backwards-compatible.  That's how a) and d) can both be valid.  But I wouldn't expect someone with your limited comprehension to grasp that.

firstly many months of your flip flops have shown you dont even know the difference between a soft and hard fork

secondly. soft or hard what i oppose is controversial activations done with mandated/biased code that bypasses consensus

but tell me again how you want to improve BITCOIN... oh wait, your mantra is just to defend CORE

As if you were in any position to judge.   :D

If I ever hear you saying something that sounds like it might be an improvement to Bitcoin, I'll let you know.  But it's safe to say most of your ideas are absolutely dismal and would make Bitcoin WORSE, not better.  But keep blaming one dev team for the fact that most of your suggestions are totally unworkable and barely anyone would support them even in the unlikely event someone took the time to code the rare few that aren't impossible.

Why don't you like it, it's only a word to describe people who like big blocks. 8)


Bandwidth is limited, and not all nodes can be on fast connections all the time. That's reality. Full nodes have to validate the transactions against the UTXO-set to be sure that all the information is correct before it sends it to another node, which will do the process again, and it takes time. Then there are the blocks, which are to be validated the same as transactions.

Do you believe that Bitcoin Cash will work as well as Bitcoin if its blocks are constantly full?

heres a funny thing. the main majority consensus of late 2015 was a 2mb legacy+segwit..
then core backed out with excuses that the devs that signed the agreement were not in power to code it (facepalm)
(they then suddenly gained power to code their 3 trick process to activate 1mb segwit)
which allows for 4mb.
again 4mb is dialup amount.(56kbit/s=4.2mbyte/10min) we are not pre-millenial. we are at fibre-5g era which is 100x+ dial up standard
cell phones can validate transactions, so thinking a desktop has problems is another reddit rhetoric trying to make people think we are back in the windows 98 era.
the whole need to stick to 1mb is like saying floppydisks are the limit of portable media

so all your 'big blocker' echo's is the reddit rhetoric of pre2015 and not the reality of what the community was compromising to in 2015-2017. also there is progressive block growth, not simply the big leap which your echoed buzzword keeps implying

shouting out buzzwords from 4 years ago shows you have not researched much and are just repeating old propaganda spoonfed to you. and this is why i keep telling you to do some actual research independently to avoid you falling for the echo's of spoonfed propaganda.. but months of your repetition shows that you have no interest in improving your knowledge.

im starting to think your not on this forum to learn, but to just have a reason to make posts to earn some footnote campaign income and probably a bit of ln sponsorship income by the way you promote something you dont understand nor seemed to have used personally

What the hell are you even on about?  No doubt you're deliberately taking something out of context again, so if you could provide a direct quote from a Core dev regarding whatever it is you're spouting nonsense about, we can debunk it more efficiently.

If you're talking about the New York Agreement, I think you'll find you have to commit to something first before you can "back out" of it.  I know such concepts might be difficult for you to grasp while you still entertain the misguided notion that devs have to do what you want them to.   ::)

doomad
now your meandering further off topic as usual by questioning small subtle points to try moving the conversation into nonsense. but to get to your point should you desire to do some research it was about the 2015 2mb+segwit (not the 2017 NYA)
early 2016 core devs pulled out of the 2mb+segwit agreement. but then went on and pulled their tricks to get 1mb segwit activated.

you may find out about it should you research
Hint: luke Jr

That's not how it works.  You either provide evidence that proves the Bitcoin Core dev team expressed their commitment to 2mb+SegWit, or otherwise I state once again that you are a lying sack of human excrement.  You can't just make stuff up and then reply "research" when someone calls you out on it (well... you can, obviously, because that's what you do in nearly every topic you post in, but it only makes it obvious that you're trolling).

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff
end of 2015 luke JR and chums talked about segwit.
saying how he could do it all soft and without splits

 and then a roundtable agreement was made for 2mb+segwit

then within a short time the core devs started pulling out by pretending they were powerless and unable to code anything
but by the time summer 2017 came around the 1mb segwit activation was done via a controversial hard fork that split the network(facepalm)
SERIOUSLY TRY RESEARCHING THIS STUFF!!!

as it seems all you wanna do is social drama replies.
please try to learn a thing or two about bitcoin and not be so obsessed with social drama

Finally a substantiated post from franky1.  Hallelujah.  Honestly never thought I'd see the day.  Why couldn't you just do that the first time?  If I didn't have to drag it out of you, I might have even been tempted to merit you. 

So your assertion is that no code was ever made that conforms to this agreement?  Is that correct?  Because it should be emphasised that this agreement doesn't promise that a 2mb+SegWit hardfork would take place, merely that an implementation would be "available".  Are you absolutely certain such code does not exist?  Because if so, I will concede the point to you.

"drag it out of me"
seriously DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH
i dont need nor care for merits.
i know you love being spoonfed info. but i am not a spoon holder
do your own research
if somebody mentions something, even subtly. RESEARCH IT. dont turn it into some social drama of how you want them to spoonfeed you stuff.
if you cant learn about bitcoin its your failure to learn not someone elses failure to teach

And you wonder why no one listens to you.  Do you honestly expect that people have nothing better to do with their lives than verifying the thousands of posts you make?  Clearly you don't have a life, but other people do.  Call it spoonfeeding if you like, but search engines don't yield helpful results for "wtf is franky1 waffling about today?" and we're not mind-readers.

Yes, those 5 signatories do appear to have agreed to something they didn't deliver.  However, 5 signatories doth not a dev team maketh.  Other devs didn't seem particularly supportive of their efforts (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14835202#msg14835202) and you're normally the one screaming about how everyone has to agree (hint: they don't).  Just because 5 people said something would happen, it doesn't mean all the contributors to that project are bound by it.  Your gripe is with those 5 people.  Now call the waaaaambulance and move on with your life.

if you cared to do your research you would se it was them same 5 devs who pretended to be incompetent to not be able to do a 2mb+segwit days after signing, who later in 2017were the ones that caused the controversy in august 2017

plus the reason i dont want to spoonfeed you is because you have shown no talent, no interest in learning about bitcoin. so i wont waste my time on you. however, for other topics and other instances i have helped out others.
but as soon as they start derailing both topics and their own attitudes. i then give up helping them out and just tell them to do thir own research.

oh and by the way this forum has a search, github has a search, if you actually search for things related to bitcoin and not "franky" then you will get better results.
so try to learn about bitcoin and NOT ABOUT SOCIAL DRAMA

now go put your social drama crap aside and start learning about bitcoin.

example why i say DYOR
person A: mentions satoshi's whitepaper (something simple/subtle that anyone can research)
person B: goes on a social drama rant that A did not quote, explain and translate the whitepaper
person A: just tells person B to go research
person b: cries some more about how he wants A to explain things and to spoonfeed B
long story short. if your not interested in researching the whitepaper yourself, dont get involved with taking about it
if you cant stay uptodate with the currently available info. then take the time to update YOURSELF and dont expect others to coach you

But when presented with real facts, you turn around, follow another course, and use social drama and propaganda to change the conversation. When presented with the real historical account of something, and how it happened, you turn around, follow another course, and shout "social drama". Haha. 8)

You are the drama.  Bitcoin Core has 624 contributors.  5 of them didn't do what they said they were going to do, so you're having a hissyfit about how the entire dev team supposedly reneged on an agreement they never actually made.  To put that into context, 0.8% of Bitcoin Core "backed out".  99.2% of Bitcoin Core contributors never made that commitment to 2mb+SegWit.  Those 99.2% don't owe you a thing, so stop being a petulant, entitled crybaby. 

doomad + windfury

YAWN
now go learn about bitcoin.

meanwhile when core now are "THE REPO", "THE REFERENCE", "THE CORE" but when a dev says they can code a version. but then doesnt even bother. thus not even getting the other devs to ACK or nACK.. or even let the community get a chance to download. you cant then try pulling out stats that XXX are against it. especially when its not even all xxx actually code. majority are just document translators and grammar checkers

but 2 years later the same limited devs do write a version for 1mbsegwit. suddenly Mr doomad declares that its what the team wanted and what the community wanted.. even though the flip flops and stats and data show the community didnt want it and it only got activated due to apartheid tricks by a limited amount of people

anyway, doomad. go learn about bitcoin and if you dont like my comments this forum has an ignore button
the ignore button should be your friend because its obvious how ignorant you are about bitcoin and the community. as all you care about is core. the funniest part is that your social drama pokes against me just echo into "coz franky said" yet you dont realise that there are many many others that are not core loyalists. you have become so obsessed and so narrow minded that you actually think that i am a single point of attack. (hilarious)

so again for the multiple time on many topics. stop wasting your life on "things franky said" and start learning about bitcoin, start caring about bitcoin and not just core. actually take a break, relax, catch your breath and spend some time looking at the wider world and understand that "franky" is not a threat to you. then. once that has sunk in spend some more time learning about actual bitcoin

That's very ironic that you're the person between the three of us who has the nerve to say that, because we try to learn, and you spread the big blocker propaganda, and lies.

Do you deny it?

https://i.imgur.com/ZRh5HLy.jpg

That's your "bilateral split", isn't it? 8)

you do realise for longer than you have even been a forum member i have been mentioning ways to fit more tx per block without needing to jump to "big blocks" ('big blocks' refers to not progressive small adjustments but huge leaps such as the fud propaganda of 'gigabytes by midnight')

there are many ways to gain more transaction throughput, things such as
reduce the sigops:- reduces ability to fill a block with just a handfull of transactions and helps relay speeds
less wishy washy bloated tx formats
a fee structure that changes people habits
progressive buffer growth, not leaps

also it was core with their mandatory bilateral split (a buzzword gmax uses) that was organised and struck first.. should you care to read some code and blockdata(like i told you several times in many topics). so dont go now trying to meander the conversation into bitcoin cash social drama and again try to concentrate on learning about bitcoin.

really go try it.
i find it funny how either you are ignorant to research things told to you sveral times before, or how arrogant you are to keep mentioning things you dont know about but just repeat just to cause social drama to deflect and meander the topic away from actual topic discussion.

now do not reply to me. spend time learning about bitcoin and lets have the next reply you make concern bitcoin. not social drama. if you end up replying to me because you dont like what i have said. press the ignore button instead. then go use the spare time to learn about bitcoin