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 |
|
|
|
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' |
|
|
|
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
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. 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 2. again theres no need for a fee market this decade
What is the math on this? Bitcoin drops to 6.25 BTC inflation next year. This is a huge security drop off. 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 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..
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
4. WHEN pools start caring more about fee's, THEY will adapt. but that is not any time soon
Pools don't care about fees? You are absurd. 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. |
|
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
|
You don't get it. Who cares what mining pools want? The fee market is not some sort of gift to miners, .......
because it ensures a continuing honest mining incentive.
mining incentive... wait. but you said you dont care about miners 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.
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 |
|
|
|
I see that. But I think you don't want to understand we are talking about a big data size already now. As you see in this chart, blockchain data size reach over 200GB. So all computer keep 200GB data in blockchain network already. If we increase the data size x2-x4, then we will reach to 1 tb in a few months. So I think we have no choice about data size. over 200gb is 10 years of accumilation.. not months of accumilation. even if people made the most perfectly bloated segwit multsigs to utilise the full 4mb weight. thats still 200gb A YEAR at the moment its 1.2mb average block so lets call it 2.4mb at 2x (120gb a year) at the moment its 1.2mb average block so lets call it 4.8mb at 4x (240gb a year) meaning at 2-4x it would be 1tb in 3.5-7 years.. not months |
|
|
|
I see that. But I think you don't want to understand we are talking about a big data size already now. As you see in this chart, blockchain data size reach over 200GB. So all computer keep 200GB data in blockchain network already. If we increase the data size x2-x4, then we will reach to 1 tb in a few months. So I think we have no choice about data size. over 200gb is 10 years of accumilation.. not months of accumilation. even if people made the most perfectly bloated segwit multsigs to utilise the full 4mb weight. thats still 200gb A YEAR at the moment its 1.2mb average so lets call it 2.4mb at 2x (120gb a year) at the moment its 1.2mb average so lets call it 4.8mb at 4x (240gb a year) meaning at 2-4x it would be 1tb in 3.5-7 years.. not months |
|
|
|
hard drives are a non issue,
--snip--
Storage capacity is still an issue, even though it's minor compared to : 1. RAM speed & capacity. 2. Internet bandwidth & latency, which affect transaction / block propagation time. Even worse if user use VPN/Tor. 3. CPU usage. 4. Storage speed. HDD will be useless if Bitcoin blockchain growth as fast as Ethereum. And if we consider initial sync/start up full nodes, storage capacity (which related to blockchain size) will be major issue. People need to wait days - weeks for initial sync and few minutes to start up their full nodes. I need to wait 1-3 minutes to run Bitcoin Core from my old HDD. as for decentralisation. the codebase is centralised to core control. what they say goes. all thats different is the distribution of blockdata. decentralisation vs distribution are different concepts.
I specifically meant decentralization in terms of total full nodes & costs of running full nodes. but you are right, all these debates have been circled around time and time again because the ultimate answer is that devs want to deburden the bitcoin network to promote commercial networks like LN
I disagree, there are many effort for on-chain scaling by reduce transaction size (rather than increase blocksize) such as Schnorr, MAST and Taproot. Even though only developer and tech savvy who know about those. ram speed and capacity is a non issue. right up until the point core added more wishy washy code that makes nodes have to convert blockchains into more than just one dataset. think about it. it used to be just full data and UTXO, but now nodes have to re-org data to send out stripped/filtered(nonsegwit), prunned, headers only, neutrino, blooms and other datasets, which is what actually causes more ram wastage. going back to basics of just 2 datasets can save ram usage. internet bandwidth easily solved as already explained. if your crying that your on a monthly limit. then pay more and upgrade. cant pay more. then reduce the node connectivity count down. there is no need to connect to 100 nodes then cry that YOUR internet is being used up.. connect to 10 nodes and realise your internet lasts 10x longer cpu usage. again no longer in the XP/vista days of single core 2ghz. we are in the quad core era.. even devs admit they dont support xp/vista. so no point using decade old hardware and cry about it schnorr is about reducing bloat of what would be LN factory transactions. and not really beneficial if i was wanting to pay real btc on the bitcoin network to a single recipient. taproot is just about making NEW bloated smart contracts use less bytes, but doesnt help current default tx formats increase tx count. its like having a strip club of anorexics for years.. then introducing plus size ladies and then introducing corsets to try hiding the plus size ladies flab. how about just stick with bitcoin being the digital cash network instead of a bloated smart contract network that needs to hide things as for the initial sync. that can be solved easily. people dont care that it takes weeks to download the blockchain. what they care about is that core coded their implementation to be useless untii the initial sync is complete. thus forcing people to wait and watch. solutions can be that a node grabs a UTXO set initially to atleast get a, lets call it 'non independantly verified balance' so that users can atleast get on and start making transactions.. and then the full blockchain that does the double check becomes a background issue that people just leave to run without any twiddling thumbs needed as for the cost of running a full node... that has got me laughing. again the math of 3000tx a block to match the blockreward would be $20 a tx. if fools think that $20 a tx is acceptable fee war.. then dont complain about a $40 a month internet bill(just 2 tx comparatively) |
|
|
|
|
we are no longer in the pre millenia of IDE based hard drives. these days the new tech is as standard
but here is a easier concept for allowing progressive growth
a node has a 'speed test' algo built in that gives the node a score. this score is used to establish good connectivity, EG high score nodes get to connect to multiple nodes near centre of relay network and low score nodes are at the edges.
this score is also used as a network tally. when high majority reach certain level then it shows that nodes can cope with more
it also helps the novice average joe that only has limited bandwidth due to living in moms basement from crying about bandwidth drain in 2 days because they foolishly think they are helping by setting their node to connect to 100 instead of just 3-8
yep thats right. users can have a better experience by reducing how many nodes they connect to at once because it concentrates the bandwidth
oh and another funny point
core decided to no longer support XP and vista.. so guess what by default core shouldnt then play games trying to convince people bitcoin should run on older tech that was around in xp/vista days
|
|
|
|
which would jeopardize decentralization.
hard drives are a non issue, 1mb legacy=52gb a year growth. cheap hard drives are terrabytes meaning 20 years of legacy or 5 years of LN gateway people usually upgrade their computer very 2-5 years anyway, especially businesses(economic nodes) that get tax breaks for doing just that as for decentralisation. the codebase is centralised to core control. what they say goes. all thats different is the distribution of blockdata. decentralisation vs distribution are different concepts. again stifling bitcoin utility to promote a separate network of users using a compressed neutrino node for LN is not helping a bitcoin node count it actually makes merchants less required to want to be full nodes by using LN increasing transaction counts allows more bitcoin utility which increases merchants desire to want to doubl check and validate such ergo the more merchants accepting real bitcoin helps bitcoin node counts. more merchants accepting LN msats doesnt hlp bitcoin node counts but you are right, all these debates have been circled around time and time again because the ultimate answer is that devs want to deburden the bitcoin network to promote commercial networks like LN |
|
|
|
Nothing fractional, and nothing custodial about a Turbo channel.
fractional: "There is no concept of what LN "allows". Channel rules are established between the two parties that enter them, it is voluntary. That means you can agree to any rules you want." which is my point. 2 parties can agree to a LN balance even without proof of btc collateral custodial: "The risk is Bitrefill's because we are fronting the BTC in that channel " turbo: no confirm = no locked collateral when the channels is "fronted" yea you can try to explain how your non turbo fee's havnt changed, but thats just a meander off topic. thats not admitting the truth, thats explaining a left hand when everyone is interested in the right hand (totally irrelevant) the safe way a system like turbo works would be that turbo is factory based. where turbo just hands out HTLC's of balance in msats that CANNOT b broadcast to bitcoin. but instead the other party has to hand to the factory for the factory to settle |
|
|
|
That had nothing to do with the devs,
code has nothing to do with devs? seriously?? you believe bitcoin is AI that self writes seriously?? you believe those owning the DNS and Fibre had no involvement in forcing the august 2017 controversial split as for the excuses for not increasing blocksizes dev excuse 1: "2mb of data every 10 mins is bad..... months later 4mb is ok but only for LN gateway transactions" dev excuse 2: "linear sigop a issue at 1mb...... months later propose to increase sigops by 4x (instead of decrease for safety)" dev excuse 3: "transaction adoption is not high enough to need more throughput onchain.... (then LN is not neded either then)" dev excuse 4: "increasing hard drive bloat leads to servers.. (2015 10k nodes acceptable, theres more nodes now)" dev excuse 5: "increasing tx count takes income from mining pools.... (so does LN)" dev excuse 6: "increasing tx count takes income from mining pools.... (if miners cared about fees, they would be more tx biased)" dev excuse 7: "certain changes put more strain on full nodes.... (such as wishy washy features that cause extra work just for LN)" anyway. lets deal with the whole fee war debate for why not progressively growing the blocks 12.5btc @$5k=$62.5k.. ~3000 tx =$20/tx... who the hell would pay $20 just to match pool income its better to have more transactions per block so each individual tx costs less anyway lets deal with the decentralisation/distribution a network of 7 billion users all fullnoding actually causes more propogation delays than a network of 10k or 100k nodes not every user with a 5g cellphone limited bandwidth package needs to be a full node. only businesses that handle multiple transactions a day will warrent the ned to investigate/double check multipl transactions so is far better to hve 10k-100k economic(merchants) as full nodes internationally. than 1mill random users doing it purely because they 'think they are helping the network' but have no big personal need to be validation thousands of tx an hour anyway lets deal with linear sigops that was the original debate(excuse) years ago.. easy fix instead of the old 4k sigops limit per tx, reducing it to 500 per tx would have helped anyway lets deal with the wishy washy code adding thousands of lines of code to now 4x stuff is more computations a node has to do to treat different tx formats differently having to get nodes to transmit differ block versions (stripped non segwit, pruned, bloomed, neutrino) adds more computations new sigscripts add more bytes per tx which bloat up a block without adding more tx count. to me non of this shows devs are 'conservative' .. to me it shows thy are only interested in making blockchains look bad so they can promote their commercial networks to give their VC funders a ROI |
|
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
|
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. 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 |
|
|
|
guys, stop swearing, we need all three types of bitcoins at the same time: small blocks BTC, medium blocks BCH and large blocks BSV
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' |
|
|
|
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.
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
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 |
|
|
|
back in 2015 community was happy with a mix of brands. but now the codebase is 99% core..
From 2009 to mid 2011 almost 100% was running a single implementation. Bitcoin or Bitcoin QT. 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 ... 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.
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 |
|
|
|
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
Blockchains need to be decentralised, or they're no better than a centralised database. Centralised databases are bad. 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 |
|
|
|
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.
and thats the point using fear of gigabyte blocks to suggest there actually would be gigabyte blocks was the empty argument 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 |
|
|
|
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.
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 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
