Lie? Guess you've never heard of "supply creates its own demand". What if... you know... Fidelity switches that flip? Of course being an intelligent person you recognize this but given that you are also a paid shill you wouldn't want people to think about this heh  You have posted ~60 times in the last 24 hours alone. And you have the gall to accuse me of being a 'paid' shill?  Forget fidelity - its a non issue. Anyway, how will the block size limit help? LN is still in the fantasyware stage, requiring a hard fork in Bitcoin before they can even begin to implement it. So, lets drop the shit scary-scary tactics.  Block size limit helps by keeping spam transactions off the blockchain. Spam is defined by transactions which cannot pay for blockchain security. As I've repeatedly stated a majority of Bitcoin holders are not concerned with making transactions so this is really a non-issue. What hard fork are you talking about anyway? LN is not the sole off-chain solution btw. Lookahere: www.stashcrypto.com |
|
|
|
Ah - the one about "If we raise the limit to 8mb, then blocks will automatically become 8mb OVERNIGHT!!" Dear god, wont someone think of the children blockchain!!
If that is the lie you choose to believe, then knock yourself out. Most intelligent people realise that blocks will grow in proportion to transaction volume.
It's called "concern trolling" here. It's a tactic of apologetics. Beware of the arsenal of fallacious arguments that follow. The "sky is gonna fall" team accusing others of concern trolling, what irony! |
|
|
|
Again, you used to at least be funny. Now you're straight up sad.  BIP100 & BIP101 are the only proposal who bothered with the voting nonsense. Others know better and realize that miners opinion on the matter is worthless as their incentives are not aligned with Bitcoin users. In short, any form of scaling to be implemented will not resort to pseudo-democracy but consensus. Therefore, BIP100 dies and so does 8MB. In fact one can argue they are both dead as we speak. Until then, all current blocks are BIP000 and you shouldn't expect this to change soon I think you are hearing voices in your head - your persecution complex is playing tricks on you. So "miner incentives are not aligned with users" is your latest mantra? Well, I have news for you - they never were, and they never will be. Its a complete irrelevance. However, as miners are such an important part of the bitcoin ecosphere, then their opinion is important. Just because they dont agree with your small block world view does not mean you can ignore a huge proportion of the players. Miners know that they can get more fee's from more transactions. Everybody knows it will get better with more transactions.Except you. You just want it to be a convenient storage vessel for your little bag of gold - but you want to come back in 10 years to see they have magically increased in value due to....math. Except.. you know... the nodes. Ah - the one about "If we raise the limit to 8mb, then blocks will automatically become 8mb OVERNIGHT!!" Dear god, wont someone think of the children blockchain!! If that is the lie you choose to believe, then knock yourself out. Most intelligent people realise that blocks will grow in proportion to transaction volume. Lie? Guess you've never heard of "supply creates its own demand". What if... you know... Fidelity switches that flip? Of course being an intelligent person you recognize this but given that you are also a paid shill you wouldn't want people to think about this heh |
|
|
|
Again, you used to at least be funny. Now you're straight up sad. BIP100 & BIP101 are the only proposal who bothered with the voting nonsense. Others know better and realize that miners opinion on the matter is worthless as their incentives are not aligned with Bitcoin users. In short, any form of scaling to be implemented will not resort to pseudo-democracy but consensus. Therefore, BIP100 dies and so does 8MB. In fact one can argue they are both dead as we speak. Until then, all current blocks are BIP000 and you shouldn't expect this to change soon I think you are hearing voices in your head - your persecution complex is playing tricks on you. So "miner incentives are not aligned with users" is your latest mantra? Well, I have news for you - they never were, and they never will be. Its a complete irrelevance. However, as miners are such an important part of the bitcoin ecosphere, then their opinion is important. Just because they dont agree with your small block world view does not mean you can ignore a huge proportion of the players. Miners know that they can get more fee's from more transactions. Everybody knows it will get better with more transactions.Except you. You just want it to be a convenient storage vessel for your little bag of gold - but you want to come back in 10 years to see they have magically increased in value due to....math. Except.. you know... the nodes. |
|
|
|
You think that Bitcoin transactions are irrelevant to the adoption of Bitcoin? It can be both a store of wealth and a currency, the two are not mutually exclusive actually they are synergistic. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin does increase its value and thereby does make it a better store of wealth. I have heard this said often now but it is a false dichotomy, Bitcoin can be many things to many different people.
I don't "think" it is, I'm certain given the facts observed. 80% of the existing coins are sitting in cold storage and haven't moved for years. Bitcoin users willing to use its rather cumbersome payment system are a minority. Sure it works great for niche use cases but it quite honestly cannot compete with other alternatives for traditional mainstream retail usage. I disagree, the ability to transact using Bitcoin directly is even personally important to me, you can use a mainstream retail payment solution if you want, I prefer Bitcoin.  Sure, it works great for a couple of my own niche use cases as well (overseas transfer, etc). But no amount of "I disagree" is going to change the fact that this remains a marginal use case. |
|
|
|
Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?
ROFL!! Aw, dude, you're killing me. Just when I thought you couldnt get more retarded you spring this one on me!! You still think this whole system is just a big pot of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere, don't you? That magical wealth has been created by .... Math? Yes. Mathematically enforced scarcity. Surely you didn't think people are holding onto Bitcoin because of its 7tps 10 min confirmation time payment system....? |
|
|
|
You think that Bitcoin transactions are irrelevant to the adoption of Bitcoin? It can be both a store of wealth and a currency, the two are not mutually exclusive actually they are synergistic. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin does increase its value and thereby does make it a better store of wealth. I have heard this said often now but it is a false dichotomy, Bitcoin can be many things to many different people.
I don't "think" it is, I'm certain given the facts observed. 80% of the existing coins are sitting in cold storage and haven't moved for years. Bitcoin users willing to use its rather cumbersome payment system are a minority. Sure it works great for niche use cases but it quite honestly cannot compete with other alternatives for traditional mainstream retail usage. |
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm...   100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000. Even Jeff Garzik has given up on his broken miners vote proposal. Try again noob. the specifics of BIP100 or BIP8MB are irrelevant point is minners want bigger blocks. miners have a strong incentive to do what they think is best for bitcoin. a minority in devs, miners and users feel it's not a good idea to increase block size. you are very much in the minority. and <100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000 Miners incentives are NOT aligned with users and therefore what miners want is irrelevant. Moreover, it is a majority of devs that are against any significant or irresponsible block size increase and the opinion of users not running a full node is exactly worthless. Why resort to lies and deception Adam? This is rather sad coming from you |
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm... 100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000. Even Jeff Garzik has given up on his broken miners vote proposal. Try again noob. Okay, I will spoon feed you. You sound like you need things broken down to simple terms. The coinbase field being used by miners to indicate their block size preference indicates 70% for 100 or 8mb. If BIP100 dies ( which I hope it will) then 8mb increase will be the only game in town. Saying that all the current blocks are current blocks is a bit childish. Again, you used to at least be funny. Now you're straight up sad. BIP100 & BIP101 are the only proposal who bothered with the voting nonsense. Others know better and realize that miners opinion on the matter is worthless as their incentives are not aligned with Bitcoin users. In short, any form of scaling to be implemented will not resort to pseudo-democracy but consensus. Therefore, BIP100 dies and so does 8MB. In fact one can argue they are both dead as we speak. Until then, all current blocks are BIP000 and you shouldn't expect this to change soon |
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm... 100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000. Even Jeff Garzik has given up on his broken miners vote proposal. The BIP100 coinbase tag only serves as a demonstration against BIP101 at this point. You used to be a better troll Lambchop |
|
|
|
Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.
"IF?" "IF?" "IF?"From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear? All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup. Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge? Get your story straight, chump! I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before. There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process. Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented. You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used. If the network did become "overloaded" or "congested" as you say. Transactions might take days to be confirmed and other transactions might not be confirmed at all depending on the fee. It would however be difficult to determine how much of a fee you would actually need in order to even get your transaction processed. This would essentially render transactions on the Bitcoin network unreliable, this would not be a good user experience, especially for people that are new to Bitcoin, and this would seriously hamper adoption and public perception. Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth? You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used.
|
|
|
|
There is no conditional hedge. Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not.
Enjoy your pain.
Says who? Either way a 1 MB incremental raise over 2 years or some 15% YOY sounds like core devs throwing redditards a bone to keep you distracted while they work on proper scaling solutions. The 8 MB increase on an exponential schedule which all the noobs were clamoring for got properly rekt and this all that matters really. Says about 70% of miners. Says the vast majority of nodes. No point in trying to mitigate your butthurt by trying to say "we were only against 8mb - other block sizes are ok!!" because we know the truth. You have been outmaneuvered. While you were screaming about "XT" and gavincoins, the whole debate changed focus and has been pretty much decided behind your back. If you are feeling cheated and irrelevant right now - Dont worry - its because you are. Its a classic trick naive people always fall for - throw them a big red flag that they can go after, screaming and shouting and threatening, while all the time the real debate gets resolved by those who can play the game effectively. Fortunately we don't take decisions based on what miners want. What a stupid thing that would be I'm guessing you pulled the "vast majority of nodes" out of your ass? You used to be a better troll Lambchop |
|
|
|
Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem. Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace. there is some urgency. right now you can't get a TX through without a good fee. i wonder how long you can sell that there is "plenty of time" to keep arguing in circles... What exactly is a "good fee?" Bitcoin provides services unavailable in any other form; there no substitute for several of its functions. But there you are, whining about paying less than a dollar for access to those miracles (which are produced at great expense). There is no "urgency." Repeating such Gavinista agitprop was for a time effective at misleading the public, but that seasonal fad is over. BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact. So keep stewing in your impotent frustrated FUD and butt-rage. The rest of us will continue to scale Bitcoin via the proper channels, based on facts instead of choreographed panic. BIP100 is at 61% hashing power. where do you get the idea that BIP000 is winning? Where do you get the idea that miners opinion is representative of consensus? |
|
|
|
Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.
"IF?" "IF?" "IF?"From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear? All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup. Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge? Get your story straight, chump! I think we should increase the blocksize before the network becomes overloaded. However if Core and the community does take to long and the network does become overloaded then I am confident that another implementation will increase the block size instead. Allowing the network to become overloaded would hamper adoption and confidence in Bitcoin that is why I think we should increase the block size before that happens. There is no backpedaling in that, it is completely consistent with what I have been saying before. There is no such thing as the network being "overloaded". Users paying enough fees will get their transactions processed and others will have to wait. If they decide that the wait is too long they will find another alternative for whatever transaction they wish to process. Moreover, this network "congestion" has little impact over nodes and miners. Coincidentally they are the one to decide whether or not an alternative protocol is to be implemented. You start under the premise that Bitcoin adopters are dying to transact over the network. Reality indicates quite the opposite. Again, you are conflating your delusions of Bitcoin adoption and what you would like it to be with what it actually is and how it is currently used. |
|
|
|
i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself, we were promised this limit would move up as needed.
not changing the limit is changing the game plan in a big way.
"i'd argue that not changing the 1MB is a change in itself" <--- I like this point. My background is not tech Nobody with a background in tech or basic logic will accept the surreal anti-conceptual Red Queen Interpretation that "not changing" "is changing." Anyone with a background in policy debate should know (and deeply appreciate) why the default state is status quo, not Doing Something Because Reasons. You don't get to redefine A as Not-A and expect anyone except drooling, easily excited ADHD Redditards to support you. Presumption has always been negative, and that's not going to change just because you think the limit needs to move up Right Fucking Now And Faster Please. Satoshi "promised" you nothing, with the arguable exception of Nakamoto Consensus being a solution/workaround to the Byzantine General Problem. Good luck selling your false sense of urgency, especially now that XT's governance coup was rekt like Stannis at Winterfell and Hearn/Galvin have disappeared in a cloud of public disgrace. there is some urgency. right now you can't get a TX through without a good fee.
i wonder how long you can sell that there is "plenty of time" to keep arguing in circles... You're lying I can send a tx with no fee right now and it should get picked up fairly quickly. |
|
|
|
Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.
"IF?" "IF?" "IF?"From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear? All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup. Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge? Get your story straight, chump! There is no conditional hedge. Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not.Enjoy your pain. Says who? Either way a 1 MB incremental raise over 2 years or some 15% YOY sounds like core devs throwing redditards a bone to keep you distracted while they work on proper scaling solutions. The 8 MB increase on an exponential schedule which all the noobs were clamoring for got properly rekt and this all that matters really. |
|
|
|
in short the only good argument for not raising the block size is that it would require more bandwidth to be consumed by nodes, and in turn drop the full node count. which is a very good argument. enough to force me to agree 1MB limit is necessary. the good news this argument won't hold up for very long, as internet connectivity improves and more importantly optimizations are implemented
There are many more good arguments but at least you are starting to see the light...! |
|
|
|
|
Let me just butt in because I'm very curious but who do you expect to fund this venture?
What makes it different or desirable against DSS (Dunvegan Space Systems) existing project?
|
|
|
|
Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality. If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it. I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work. Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing. How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance? Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it it won't stick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distributionWealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory. Well the onus of proof on how Bitcoin will achieve this is on you. If your argument is that Bitcoin will achieve this by having every poor African adopt it before the economic majority does then your understanding of "capitalist theory" is broken. I am not saying this, redistribution of wealth has already happened. Early adopters for instance already had an influx of wealth. If the price of Bitcoin goes up then our wealth increases as well, this is in effect a redistribution of wealth, its quite simple really. Oh sure if you're willing to stretch the definition to such extent why not? Then I guess lottery is a tool for redistribution of wealth and so are penny stocks  |
|
|
|
Yes, I know you'd love for Bitcoin to be a tool of wealth redistribution, but that is not how it works and it was never meant to be so. Stop conflating your delusions with reality. If Bitcoin is adopted by the world's economic majority then by definition it has become the standard for money. This necessarily translates into its adoption by the remaining 80% which, as any herd does, will follow. As such, having our financial system operate on the sound economic theory of Bitcoin will benefit EVERYONE, even if the 80% retain little control over it. I'm sorry but you have terrible understanding of economics and how this world operates. You might think your opinion holds value but seeing as most of it is pure delusion and ignorance you don't get to pull the "agree to disagree" argument. How you'd like the world to work is not representative of how it actually does work. Bitcoin does bring about wealth redistribution whether you like it or not. How about instead of telling me that my opinion is one of pure delusion and ignorance you give me a counter argument instead. That would be more convincing. How about you don't bother me with your economic ignorance? Wealth disparity is an inevitable outcome in any economy. Bitcoin is capitalism in its purest form. Stop trying to stick socialist shit to it it won't stick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distributionWealth disparity is indeed an inevitable outcome of any economy. However decreasing global and local inequality is a positive thing and not inconsistant with good capitalist theory. Well the onus of proof on how Bitcoin will achieve this is on you. If your argument is that Bitcoin will achieve this by having every poor African adopt it before the economic majority does then your understanding of "capitalist theory" is broken. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
