And from the creator himself: The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
I was wrong, I'm sorry I was retarded ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif) Do you really want to play that route? Because we can both do this. I fixed yours as well, no charge ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Worrying about the Bitcoin network's limit based on today's bandwidth limit is like worrying about torrenting Blu-rays in the days of dial-up.
|
|
|
And from the creator himself:
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
|
|
|
No, the mistake was on my part. His offer is 750 bitcoin today for 1`000 USGavincoin in the future, which is essentially the same as trading 750 post-fork bitcoin for 250 USGavincoin. I might be willing to offer you a better deal, but I will not agree to "refund" in the case that the fork doesn't happen. That's the whole point of making this kind of agreement. I'd be betting that the fork is not successful, whether by being crushed on the market or by not ever happening. If you're really interested in buying some discounted coins, you had better get in the WoT. Pitchman!Are you trying to be funny? I'm "pitching" the very thing you claim to support. I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts. Your market forces will just have to deal with larger blocks. Who the fuck would give MP money, are you batshit insane?
|
|
|
Mircea Popescu... Josh Garza... what's the difference???
|
|
|
Reddit comment that shits on Mircea Popescrackapipescu gets the most upvotes:https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yjqce/gavin_andresen_optimistic_about_scaling_bitcoin/" ... cue Mircea Popescu and his Scooby Gang: "Gavincoin's gunna be worthless! Respect mah arbitrary block size limit cause: incoherent ideological economix reasonz." Current value of the limit is arbitrary, that's not even a question. There being some limit makes sense (to prevent flooding), but demanding to treat the current value as immutable is an insult to your own intelligence.Satoshi pointed out years ago already, at some point, as the network grows, we probably want to do something like if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit Makes sense, unless of course you have a very different plan for the network in mind... The only good (EDIT) logically valid, but still pretty bad reason I can see to be categorically against adjusting max block size as the network grows (adjust the limit, not remove it entirely) is if you would like Bitcoin to turn into "semi fungible high limit poker chips for the elite" in the long run. (I like that description, took it from here.)" - Oda_Krell
|
|
|
I admit I'm a paid shill. It's a little of 1 and 2. And seriously, too long? Either admit you cannot best me in an argument, or admit you have brain damage. But don't keep feigning intelligence; liars are disgusting. There is no argument with a brain dead shill like yourself. I'm always correct. I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill. So long as you remain predictable as another needy ape flapping his gums, you are your own worst enemy and I won't have to lift a finger. Plebeians like you just can't comprehend the bigger scheme of things, and therefore my intelligence isn't wasted on vegetables like yourself. ![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.chess.com%2Fimages_users%2Ftiny_mce%2Fbosco%2Fgarry_kasparov.jpg&t=665&c=uCbm01tMpKrIkQ) Checkmate.
|
|
|
We're just in the handle phase of the cup+handle formation. A bigger movement is yet to come.
|
|
|
Way too fucking early for a rally.
First off, nobody is going anywhere without Gemini and the Bitlicense. Any premature rally will get dumped on by miners from China.
Secondly and somewhat related to first point: nobody is going anywhere without the big ETF, which is dependent on Gemini proving that the market in the West won't easily be raped by the Chinese dump monkeys.
Lastly and most importantly, we're constantly skirting with the blocksize limit. The moment volume picks up and we see tens of thousands of unconfirmed transactions disregarded into the void, the media will scream about how flaky bitcoin is as a method of payment, to which the newbs will dump coins faster than fat kid after eating Taco Bell.
In 2015, we are in the "2012" phase of quiet transition. Nobody is going anywhere after the 80% slow bleed. None. Infrastructure is building at a rapid phase and the mainstream media is none the wiser. This is in fact, a good thing.
Just wait until the Winkies gets their hall pass from Uncle Ben, the ETF gets their stamp from Uncle Sam, and Gavincoin goes live, then perhaps we are due for The Big Fucking Rally, and then it's lights out for fiat.
|
|
|
Remember that before blowing off Gavin and the blog I linked above, keep in mind that he has a Ph.D., is the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and is a core developer. He might be *slightly* more qualified to propose any changes or lackthereof to the Bitcoin protocol than your guru, Mircea ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
Consider these two scenarios: - Block size remains the same, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, and you will need to pay higher fees to get a transaction included.
- Block size increases, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, but the fee remains the same.
Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses. Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature. What numbers have I given, or have you pulled more imaginary numbers out of your ass and called it my number as well?You profess to tell the truth no matter what... and this is the best you come to me with??? Perhaps instead of speculating with numbers you claimed yourself, to have been pulled out of your ass, read Gavin's quantitative analysis on blockchain scalability where a claim is backed up with actual numbers: http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html
|
|
|
Bitcoin is for everyone, but the early adopters will be the new elites.
The either-or dichotomy in the poll is asinine.
|
|
|
And perhaps I should clarify: most of the people who voted in favor of the size increase in this thread's poll are probably not running a full node; most of the people who voted against the size increase probably are. I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass, and it would probably be considered a bad bet anyway. I run a full node. Those who votes in favor of the size increase actually uses the blockchain directly, and the reason for them doing so is to not have to pass through a central gatekeeper like Paymium in the first place. ... if you're pulling numbers out of your ass, and reality shows you a different number, then you're wrong. Clear and simple. My goal is strictly to tell the truth, no matter how offensive it may be. Correction, your goal is to tell what you believe is the truth, whether that aligns with The Truth or not is a different matter.
|
|
|
Think you will find 80+% of blocks with fake nodes ? ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Of course, 20MB fake nodes. What's your point? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) My point is that fake nodes dont' win POW armrace. That's why bitcoin is secure. Then it's back to all things equal, the more numerous consensus will win. Poll above has writing on the wall. You need 80% of hashrate to win. Not nodes. That's already taken into account. The Americans nodes supports Gavin. The Chinese are pragmatic and will follow Gavin. There can be no victory against the majority.
|
|
|
Think you will find 80+% of blocks with fake nodes ? ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Of course, 20MB fake nodes. What's your point? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif) My point is that fake nodes dont' win POW armrace. That's why bitcoin is secure. Then it's back to all things equal, the more numerous consensus will win. Poll above has writing on the wall.
|
|
|
Think you will find 80+% of blocks with fake nodes ? ![Grin](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/grin.gif) Of course, 20MB fake nodes. What's your point? ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
FWIW I am relatively new here, though, after having read the article, I can't avoid noticing that Paymium/Bitcoin-central offers this services not directly but through a chain of partnership (Paymium -> Aqoba -> Crédit Mutuel Arkea).
I dunno if it still applies, the article's quite old as it was published on Dec 2012, but if it's the case I've seen more than once the "Finance industry" fighting back trying cutting links between exchanges and the entity entitled of the actual money transmitter license. I'm not saying that's the case, though.
Your reading and comprehension are accurate. I'll add it to the list of things like sidechains, pruning and other things that keep getting raised when you run out of arguments. All sound great in theory, but actually need to be finished, ready to go and proven reliable before they can be considered viable alternatives. Until that time comes, the 1MB limit has to go.
Open Transactions is ready. Do your fucking homework before answering. Bitcoin is whatever the fuck I say it is. Your opinion is your own, get over it.
Bitcoin isn't a assertocracy either. people like me will simply use
You will *get* used, as cumrags. I understand that English isn't your first language and your country lost several wars, but it looks like you're juggling three different criticisms coming at you like a whore juggling three cocks... You seem rather overextended... This is just a precedent of what happens when the 20MB blockchain rolls out and you try to run your piddly little 1MB chain. ![Wink](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
The reality is that derps like me vastly outnumbers
Bitcoin is neither a democracy nor a stupidocracy, get over it. Bitcoin is whatever the fuck I say it is. Your opinion is your own, get over it. There are sets of consensus rules that people like me will simply use to overpower your curated gold, and there is very little you can do about it given that the core developers has the backing of the masses. Just like the French Revolution, the third and fourth estate will be responsible for the downfall of the first estate. Know your history, Frenchman.
|
|
|
If the internet couldn't be accessed by more than three person every second, then suddenly the internet stops becoming useful!
We'll park derps like you on dogecoin the same way one billion derps are herded towards Facebook every day. The reality is that derps like me vastly outnumbers tinpot dictators like you, and we'll park ourselves on Bitcoin and expand the blocksize by sheer weight of consensus. We will feast on the network and write whatever the fuck we want on The Holy Ledger. What are you going to do about that?
|
|
|
|