FACT #9. I don't see you giving a better theory.
FACT #10. I don't see you giving a better advice.
-snip-
They don't have to give any better theory, as you've clearly demonstrated that you have no idea how Bitcoin (specifically Bitcoin Core) works. It's best to admit it and start learning from your mistakes, otherwise you'll end up spreading false "tips" to other users.
I don't even get your "theory" here. Are you referring to this part? Seems that BitCoin Wallet / Network needs near 3MB/s or 25Mbps.
Because this is wrong, and Bitcoin will sync up fine at 1 Mbps. |
|
|
|
The whole reason huge transactions are unsafe is because of quadratic scaling, which won't work if you split up the equation across two transactions that scale linearly with each other.
I wasn't talking about that when I mentioned the potential of unknown attack vectors. So you agree there's no normal use case for 1MB or larger transactions, so why do you oppose limiting transactions to 1MB while increasing blocksize?
I don't agree with that. I haven't thought about it, and I'm pretty sure that there may very well be a normal use case for some business. Are you mad because I can destroy your entire argument in 2 minutes of typing?
1) I don't get "mad" when someone rationally shows supreme arguments. 2) You did no such thing. I have proven this to be factually correct, and it remains true until you prove proof that your disagreement is backed by logical reasoning and facts.
You have done no such thing. You're starting to resemble Veritas. And you can teach me?
I may or may not be able to, not that it would matter. First of all, technology has become much cheaper in the past 6 years (on average at least). And besides, who really has a hard drive measured in gigabytes anymore?
Strawman argument. I'm sure this is in no way a strawman argument. It's a pure example of strawman fallacy. I never argued that "technology didn't become cheaper" did I? Don't attempt to use fallacies again, else we end up with nonsense as "Strawman nodes".  Yes, they're being sold and yes I plan to buy a 1/2 TB drive.
That's still plenty to run 20MB blocksize for several years, even if you falsely assume every single block is full. (and it's still a drive measured in terabytes) 20 MB per block x 6 blocks per hour x 24 hours a day x 365 days a year = ~1051 GB per year. Please explain how a 1/2 TB drive (aka 500 GB drive) would run for "several years". It's quite easy, you just divide the blocksize by the average time it takes to find a block.
20 MB / 10 minutes = 2 MB per 1 minute. 2 divided by 60 = 0.03 MB/s. Let me tell you why your thinking is flawed (not that you're going to admit this). If a node is downloading at this speed, it will never catch up. Why is that? By the time that it downloads a 20 MB block, it is likely that another one will be created. The node would still be validating the previous block in addition to having the next one. I do wonder how long it takes to validate a 20 MB block on decent hardware though. And what is the primary bottleneck then? I'm sure memory won't be a problem with blocksizes smaller than a few gigabyte.
Validation time.
a 2tb hard drive is only 800,00 kuna (im guessing your still in croatia) (£90 : $120 for those not wishing to convert kuna to western currencies)
No, I am not and have never been in Croatia. |
|
|
|
If you limit the transaction size to 1MB, nothing changes from having a 1MB blocksize without a transaction size limit.
There may or may not be attack vectors that could work with 2x 1 MB transactions. Just because it seems safe, that doesn't mean that it will be. Who would ever need to fill an entire block with 1 transaction?
I'm not talking about normal usage when it comes to security problems. You are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing at this point.
Said every person when losing their ground.
That doesn't mean you can't look at other coins as an example.
It's one thing to fork something small and centralized, and another to fork Bitcoin. Bitcoin would become the myspace of crypto
Stop being "spoon fed" (as franky1 would put it) by Ver & co. It does. You can't just say this every time someone disproves your statements.
It does not, as can be seen with your lack of experience in regards to large scale infrastructure. First of all, technology has become much cheaper in the past 6 years (on average at least). And besides, who really has a hard drive measured in gigabytes anymore?
Strawman argument. And since no one is going to buy a hard drive of less than 1TB anyway (are they even sold anymore?) your argument is mood.
Yes, they're being sold and yes I plan to buy a 1/2 TB drive. Even worse with network. Does anyone seriously have a bandwidth so low that 266kb/s is a problem? (that would be 20MB blocks).
You obviously aren't factoring in the primary bottleneck, but let's go with this. How did you derive this number, i.e. by calculating what? |
|
|
|
what actual costs..
1 MB of data per full block -> 2 MB of data per full block. This equals to 2x increase. oh i forgot you dont have a real node running on a home computer. you have an online AWS node with only probably 100gb storage
My node is not on any online service. Stop spreading lies. try splashing out $300 and run a real node for once and be part of the decentralized network. that $300 will last you over 10 years
$300 won't last you 10 years. Core's official roadmap claims to have Segwit and LN active in April/July 2016 respecitively
Both are false. Core did deliver Segwit in April, but there was no mention of activation by that time. "LN active" is a pure lie. There are other groups that are developing Lightning. In my opinion, people make way too big a deal about an increase from 1MB to even 2MB, while 2MB blocks don't even hurt anyone (heck, even 20MB blocks wouldn't hurt anyone).
Statements like this one make people ignorant fools by default. |
|
|
|
1) You could limit the transaction size while still increasing the blocksize.
It's not a matter of 'could' or 'could not', but rather a matter of "should" or "should not". I disagree with those limitations. 2) ETH did fine.
We're talking about Bitcoin, not a mutable shitcoin. 3) Few shops actually directly accept bitcoin without an intermediary. Those intermediaries should be bitcoin-savvy enough to prevent damage to the merchants. Those merchants that do accept bitcoin directly probably know enough about it as well.
This argument has no relevance to what I said. You don't know how long it takes for those "intermediaries" to upgrade and test their custom implementations (hint: 28 days is ridiculous). 4 & 5) The increased costs is only marginal.
A minimum of 2x increase is "marginal"? And most people have plenty of room on their hard disks..
You can't know this. Example: I have to upgrade my node soon due to inadequate amount of storage on it.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that in case something goes wrong with your datadir (if you use Core as a wallet for example), you will spend a ridiculous amount of time fixing it with absurd block size proposals. |
|
|
|
|
4 and 5 @ 0.02 BTC
Give my raffle spots to others.
|
|
|
|
That however I'd something different. $12 can buy you more than a beer  $12 is really useless and irrational if it's going to cause a lot of trouble. Still don't know which way to go. I could leave a service annoyed or a group of users butthurt...
I'd say go with the users, then again I don't know the exact details nor the owner of the service. You should tell them to give input in this thread. |
|
|
|
Well, despite trivial amounts, we see people rushing for a free 10k Satoshi in the Games & Rounds section Poor people wasting time and bandwidth for peanuts. Hewent as far as to mention a neg. I've also received another PM from another user in the campaign. I'm pretty stumped.
Their PM is full of subjective bias. Why not open a "scam accusation" against the users that leave the negative rating? Obviously you can't blame the service for the communication errors either, can you now? The real question is why does the service care about $12? |
|
|
|
My recommendation is three strikes Max, unless they have a good reason to spam (Can't think of one. It better be a damn fine reason.). After that? Pull out the nukes.
That's really a bad suggestion and here's a better one: Ban on first strike (permanent on consecutive; as it has always been). Anyhow, your post is really irrelevant and unnecessary to this thread.
This thread should be locked as it seems to be spiraling out of control. OP can always talk to the global moderators about individual cases directly via PM. |
|
|
|
"users" refers to nodes that are not mining. not the physically breathing and eating and pooping human at the computer
That's not the definition of a user. It's one thing to be a user, and another one to be a node operator. also its the nodes that do the validating
You don't say? wait..
let me guess your subtly hinting that the node decentralization doesnt matter and you think that 6000 nodes is irrelevant and we should just have 1 node?
You've guessed wrong, yet again. If I thought that decentralization didn't matter, then I'd be proposing ridiculous block sizes like those BU lunatics. |
|
|
|
need you forget what happens after the grace period.
miners are then satisfied that atleast OVER 95% of nodes have the rules ready... then the miners do their own flagging and consensus mechanism over another block measure.
Miners don't care about the situation with the node count and they should not be interested it. The number of nodes in a small period of time is a horrible metric as it can be easily manipulated. seriously wake up to reality and join the conversation, get out of the fantasy doomsday nightmare that is not reality and start thinking rationally about how things will work in the real world.
Ad hominem & no argument once again. miners wont jump first, they will wait for users.
Again, the "users" that run nodes are a small minority. There's no way to properly "wait for users" as there's no way to "measure these users". |
|
|
|
|
Entry ticket price has been lowered to 0.013 BTC
|
|
|
|
|
I've looked into your posting activity. The primary reason (if not the sole reason) for the rejection of your application is your horrible posting quality. It can be clearly seen on page 2 and 3 of your posts that you're farming up your post count by replying in low quality, generic thread with 1-2 liners expressing useless input (e.g. "I think.. x").
That being said, you've made false and defamatory statements against SF10 and this campaign without having any evidence to back this up. This is an act of calumny, which I can not approve of.
|
|
|
|
again.. the 95% does not trigger until 5700 have reviewed code, tested it and happy to run it..
this could take days-weeks-months before we start to see people using it. and longer before there is a clear 95% stable and constant use of it that meets a stable/constant use parameter of lets say 1000-10000 block measure of constant 95%.
No. You have no idea what you're talking about. The "95%" is regarding the hashrate supporting the proposal, not the number of nodes supporting it. If it were up to the number of nodes, one could easily disrupt this by creating a ton of AWS nodes using an older version. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Maybe technically isn't the best word, but he told me to refund a day after I told everyone about the problem. Supposedly he wasn't receiving my Skype messages so I only ended up getting to him two days after the campaign week started.
Does it really matter with such a trivial amount? We are talking about ~$12. What do the participants think about this? Considering the number of participants (which I did not look into), they'd all be getting amounts that aren't even enough to buy a single beer. I don't understand why anyone would bother with this (including the service owner and the participants). |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Illegal.
|
|
|
|
I don't think this problem has anything to do with Bitcoin Core specifically. The problem is that horrible Wifi adapter that you're using. Alternatively, you can try downloading a similar amount of other content in order to prove this hypothesis. Seems that BitCoin Wallet / Network needs near 3MB/s or 25Mbps.
This isn't correct. You can download at pretty much any speed. Even 1 mbps is fine, it is just going to take a while. The bottleneck is likely not going to be the connection anyways, but rather validation. |
|
|
|
This really isn't a forum related problem (Meta); remember, trust isn't moderated nor are there any "obligations" under the forum rules when it comes to escrow. This may be better fit for reputation or another section. Anyhow, you need to elaborate on the following: Technically he only replied after the second week started. So do I distribute the remaining to the participants, or do I return the funds back to OC, as asked?
What exactly happened, i.e. that you labeled "technically"? |
|
|
|
grand scale?
theres only 6000 nodes..not 600k, not 6mill, not 6 billion... just 6000 (which only ~ 5500 are active at any one time)
The number of nodes has nothing to do with the size of the infrastructure of a singular business. They can be fine running 1 node, or even running none. In addition to that, just because Core has updated to 0.xx.xx that does not mean that a business, running a custom implementation can update within a particular time frame. and by the way, you yourself dont even know C++* and a few other languages, you have been proven to lack understanding of programming on many occasions
Pure ad hominem. While the first statement is correct, as I don't do "C++", the secondary is false. In addition to that, not knowing a programming language has nothing to do with the argument that I'm creating. here is some lessons about the 6000 nodes
1. 5700 nodes would be upgraded just to trigger the 95% benchmark
2. 300 nodes (5%) then have 2-6months to move across, to give them a little more time to vet and check the software.
This is all completely false, and useless to read. The number of nodes updating has nothing to do with HF activation parameters. i refrained from embarrassing you by quoting your admissions of lack of programming knowledge.
Said the person attempting to undermine someone's argument with pure ad hominem, in addition to lacking the same knowledge yourself. |
|
|
|
This deserves a bump.
Still relevant.
Of course it is relevant, but it should either be renamed to something in the lines of: "Why I don't support bigger blocks right now and neither should you".
If you're going to bump it, at least throw in some recent developments like the news about the new bitcoin.com mining pool..
There's really no reason to link to anything owned by the altcoin pumper. Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
