I've known this for a while now and so did a few others. However, it is nice to see some number from a company such as Bitfury. Those nodes are really pointless as they could be shut down easily. This is the Sybil attack that has been going on ( A data with Sybil). What makes things even worse is that the Coinbase CEO is the one who is promoting such attacks. |
|
|
|
AFAIK bitcoin was created as a p2p cash in the first place and i hope in the future it gets closer to this purpose, and i think it can get there too if the number of users increase and the volatility decreases.
That's a rather complex problem (volatility) that is not directly related to the debate. Bitcoin should be able to always accommodate new users; as long as it continues functioning the same way that it does. The problem that we can run into is that suddenly 1 million people (arbitrary number) want to buy Bitcoin and create 1 TX in a day. This would create a 'heavy' backlog because the system is only able to handle 3 TPS at the moment. This is why we need everything (to be ready and prepared): 1) Segwit 2) Block size increase 3) Lightning Network 4) Sidechains
The network should not have backlogs unless it is under attack, else I don't see how it could be considered 'P2P cash'. |
|
|
|
They aren't. If they were, the average block size would be closer to 1 MB and not around 700kb. i propose bigger blocks becoz u can add things like video, music, gifs etc to the blockchain and it makes it more fun...
Why would I, as an node operator (as an example) want to store your 'shit' for free? No thanks; this is a very bad argument. Nothing can be done and nothing will be done, people in charge do what they want regardless what needs to be done.
The people that you're promoting are worse by all aspects (starting with knowledge and skills). You are in the right of supporting bigger blocks..
Segwit is fine as the first step. A bigger block size can come at a later time. |
|
|
|
This is what was so good about BIP101 in that the block size would automatically increase every 2 years, so there would not be this contentious debate that is making Bitcoin look very bad to the outside world all the time. Granted the doubling of the max block size every two years might have had a higher growth rate that Moores law would be able to support over the long term, but this could have easily been fixed by say slowing the growth rate to something like doubling the max block size every 2.5 years, or increasing the maximum block size by 75% every 2 years, or increasing the maximum block size by 75% every 2.5 years, or some other variation thereof.
BIP101 was horrible because of many reasons. I have no idea why you would say that it was good. Additionally, Moore's law is not a law in the traditional sense but rather an observation based on nothing. Even Moore himself confirmed this. Relying on something like that for scaling would be a very bad idea. Cash is money for the people, a currency that everyone can use cheaply, directly, easily and quickly. A settlement layer is what large financial institutions use to settle balances between them. It is exclusive, elitist and reinforces or recreates the power structures we have today. Settlement networks would become obsolete if people chose to use cryptocurrencies on mass as currency.
Fair enough, however you don't seem to list any features in comparison to the other list (about P2P Cash). How would Bitcoin as a settlement layer even look like? |
|
|
|
I don't get how this guy is still posting after implying "7000 enterprise level internet connection as full nodes" being all that's needed to keep the network running is a good thing. Is he for real?
Good question. I'm certain that people like him would not mind all those "enterprise level" nodes being run on a single datacenter as well. There were even people saying that non-mining nodes don't matter at all. Please, don't you understand yet that 1000 nodes run by random people spread all over the world in different places under Tor, is way more secure and decentralized than 100000 nodes run by a couple corporations on their super fast internet perfectly located datacenter buildings? Please just stop it.
Indeed. Without decentralization, Bitcoin is nothing. This is why we need to work to retain as much of it as possible. |
|
|
|
|
Briam Armstrong is a special case apparently. He's talking about corporations promoting their own agendas when he's the main person doing so. Additionally, let's not forget that he has shown support for and has promoted a sybil attack on the network.
|
|
|
|
|
What is this rambling again? Are you trying to say that the post count is directly related to the attention of banksters? There isn't much data that they can 'farm' depeneding on the user.
|
|
|
|
Wow, what a great article. everybody who does bitcoin should be able to read this. Really good article about bitcoin. Great stuff
Unfortunately there are some who keep trying to deny or ignore this. I think bitcoin can be brought down if there is a system working better than it and covers the same needs, Something like a crypto but more useful and gaining the trust of the users, I don't think that is happening though.
What makes you think that Bitcoin can't incorporate these features? The only way that it could be possible is that this 'something else' is either closed source or fundamentally different than Bitcoin in design. However, this isn't really relevant to the post. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Insubstantial welcome thread.
|
|
|
|
BIP 101 would have increased the maximum block size "today" and then subsequently increased maximum block sizes in the future at a sustainable rate.
That BIP is horrible. Bitcoin can't support a doubling every two years. There is not any evidence that suggests increasing the maximum block size today is a bad idea. Even if such an increase is "not needed" then there will be no harm in increasing the maximum block size because current modern computers and current modern broadband connections would be able to handle 2MB blocks.
There's that attack vector that a 2 MB block size limit opens up, but I guess that would be considered as "not evidence". Additionally, it gets worse the further up you go. BTW, if you are against increasing the maximum block size today, then you should also be against SegWit because SegWit will increase the amount of data transmitted each time a block is found.
Not really, no. There is no such thing as a fake node
Yes there is. |
|
|
|
I find it deeply troubling that you seem to consider an environment of multiple implementations that constantly threaten to fork the Bitcoin network over their pet issues to be the healthiest system.
Nobody in their right mind would suggest something like this (seems something wrong with Veritas). We are talking about introducing competition in a consensus based algorithm. Do they not see how wrong this sounds? Bitcoin should remain as is. In fact you just need a couple of phone calls to arrest Blockstream devs and stop Chinese mining pools to disable bitcoin network TODAY
Arrest them for what, exactly? The latter doesn't change anything -- if hash rate drops, miners elsewhere will pick up the slack, assuming it is profitable. If hash rate drops extremely quickly, we can release an update that causes the difficulty algorithm to update faster. The thinking is that if Classic took over right now, this problem (fear mongering) would magically disappear.  I am beginning to think you are even more clueless than franky. But no one could top VS on the short bus candidate list. That guy is a Grade A Retard.
He wasn't always like this; something drastically changed in the recent months. I wonder why.  |
|
|
|
No, there aren't any official rules. That's why that says "unofficial list of rules".
Technically that is correct. It is what it is. You ask off topic questions, I give reasonable answers. You don't like the answers, suddenly I am off topic. Funny how that works. The rules are for me because I say things you don't like, but lets ignore the fact that you yourself are leading this off topic discussion, and lets forget about all the other off topic posts here I reported which go ignored. If I open a thread for each topic, then I am breaking the rules "spamming threads".
What's wrong with you; do you have some problems up there? I never said anything about "not liking the answers". There's a difference between posts containing an off-topic question(s) and posts being completely off-topic. I asked that question specifically because I'm unsure of whether we should continue discussing it here and because it is your thread, not because I'm trying to tag you as off-topic or something. What is important is you stop me from bringing these inconsistencies to light, right?
I see none. "Free Speech" xkcd incoming?
No, why would it? |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Sales of accounts and invites to invite-only sites.
|
|
|
|
Gmax had interactions with Bilderberg banksters. You start playing conspiratard soon enough there will be nobody left. Lauda, I'm a little disappointed in you.
Just because I say that there is a possibility, that doesn't mean that I'm trying to advocate that it is necessarily true (i.e. conspiracy theorists). Doesn't seem like you had interaction with probability theory. Usually I do not care at all unless there is really strong evidence supporting such a claim (there isn't in these cases). Whether it's true or not, i don't care as long as they don't want to make bitcoin centralized or stay at 1MB block size.
There's nothing wrong with staying at a 1 MB block size limit (if there weren't any available options to pick from). |
|
|
|
Indeed, people organically spread the meme ("urgent max block size increase required or Bitcoin will stagnate and possibly die") as misinformation, but its origins are probably as disinformation. It's not so much that "humans are flawed", it's more that propaganda and mind control and perception management techniques have gotten quite advanced.
Regardless, they are still flawed. The first thing that one tries to exploit (e.g.) when hacking is the human. Similarly, Bitcoin can't be broken by mathematics nor technology (as of today), and thus the logical step would be to try to exploit the humans. No matter what everyone says, Bitcoins cannot be brought down. It is liked by many peoples as it is easily and readily tavailable.
That is overly-optimistic at best. The current price of Bitcoins also suggests that it is growing in a positive directions.
This is not related. |
|
|
|
You are missing an important point here, which is that we are operating of the presumption that the majority of miners will not act maliciously. After all if this presumption was not true then Bitcoin would be fundamentally flawed anyway.
Nope, this is not what I'm talking about. I could try explaining it from the begging, but I don't feel it is worth our time since it is about a hypothetical situation (100 MB block size limit with 5 MB average usage). I would say that we should think for ourselves, listen to the arguments of both sides and make up your own mind. I would argue that it is your authoritarian logic that is flawed.
Yeah, keep drinking the kool-aid from people that have limited knowledge and impaired abilities. What johnyj wants is something I call CoinbaseCoin. CoinbaseCoin is what we'd get if we prematurely (IE prior to post-fiat Cryptopia) restrict Bitcoin to data centers, ignoring the engineering requirement it be above the law. When Bitcoin has accomplished its primary mission of disrupting central banking and ensuring Chancellors may no longer consider bailouts for TBTF banks, then we may relegate most full nodes to data centers. But until we usher in the Golden Age of Satoshi, full nodes must be kept in places where the long arm of the BIS cannot easily reach. Well said. |
|
|
|
I would not consider finding one block lets say over the course of a year to be a viable mining operation, that would be more like gambling. Look I am a miner myself, when you invest a lot of money into equipment you would not want to gamble that investment away because of variance.
That's not the point of my post. I was referring to the other guy initially where he said that others wouldn't accept your big block if the limit was 100 MB. My point is, you can't know whether someone is malicious or not in this case and thus they'd need to create a single (maxed out) block to cause severe damage. You implied it.
No. I hope you can realize how flawed this thinking is, just because the majority believes one thing it does not make it true, there are plenty of historical examples that show this principle does not hold, furthermore it is not necessarily that clear to know what the majority is thinking, which is a dilemma I am sure the miners also face when making the decision what rules to change or adopt, this is both true for an increased blocksize and segwit.
2 engineers say B is the answer, 98 engineers say A is the answer, therefore B must be right. Nice logic Veritas. |
|
|
|
Because they're people that I used to talk to long ago. They were rational, intelligent, were not mindless drones following the herd and I greatly respected their opinion. None of them have been here for more than a year. LoupGaroux hasn't been here for almost three years.
I see. Out of those 4 I only remembered Kluge (didn't notice the other ones). I will leave if blockstream or something similar become successful, they can use their technology on centralized currency.
That makes no sense. The only reason for which this could come to someones mind is due to reading the propaganda by the 'forkers' or shills. As an example, they tend to say that the Lightning Network is Blockstream's product and is centralized (obviously both are false). Turns out Bitcoin ain't the "mathematically-secured, trustless currency, not a plaything of corruptible h00mans & their frailties, like that filthy fiat toilet paper."
'The only thing' that could destroy it is human stupidity (as with everything). |
|
|
|
I did a calculation recently where I figured it would cost a minimum of six million dollars in order to carry out a viable solo mining operation.
Show me these calculations. Additionally, you don't need a 'viable' operation; you need 1 block. Do you seriously believe that someone who invests six million dollars into a mining operation would not be able to afford to run their own full node in a datacenter anywhere in the world?
I never said this. Agreed, which is why I think a hard block size limit is not even necessary, which is why my preferred implementation is Bitcoin Unlimited.
If it truly wasn't necessary, everyone would either jump to BU and/or remove the limit in the current implementation. In other words, it is necessary. |
|
|
|
The problem is there is no uniform enforcement of any of the rules around here and not even any official rules posted. This leaves the doors wide open for abuse, nepotism, and other types of selective enforcement. There is no rule of law here at all, just might makes right, and that certainly never goes bad does it?
Well, technically there is. We are trying out best to make moderation as consistent as possible (in addition to trying something out behind the scenes ATM). There is the Unofficial list of rules which we tend to use as a reference point (among other things). I'm certain that there aren't many examples of inconsistent/bad moderation because of this. Regardless, I think that this is a tad off-topic in your thread, is it not? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
