another topic about hyperledger.. i think this forum needs a sub category along side altcoins for hyperledger chit chat. so we can move these topics to where they belong

and while people pretend to think they know bitcoin by talking about moores law.

they need to realise that hashing a block solution(mining) and block size are not linked.
no matter how big a block becomes.. its hash will always be a sha256. and a mining pool will hash the hash the same.

dont confuse the cost of hashing a single sha256 piece of data.. with the blocksize debate.
mining and block size are 2 different things.

also bitcoins blocksize does not require 100% utility of the top end CPU in existance to validate transactions/blocks.. so there is still lots of capability in block propagation/validation.(no where near the end of the limit of moores law)

yes a raspberry Pi 3 can handle 8mb blocks, even core devs agree but devs think 4mb is safer. even at consensus 2015 the compromise went down to 2mb just so that core devs and their sheep cant play that doomsday card.

but it seems the blockstream sheep are trying to pull that doomsday back to life without actually thinking about the reality.

a raspberry Pi 3 is far far less than a standard desktop PC. so block validation is not at its limit so block size should not be limited due it such fake doomsdays.

first of all

months ago many banks that made up the R3 consortium decided they didnt need r3 as a middleman and instead the banks decided to concentrate on being directly connected to HYPERLEDGER.

what remains of r3 are deciding they can run as a second layer service.. which again is part of the hyper ledger.

what they are saying is they are not going to have their own private blockchain.
but that does not mean they are going to be part of bitcoin.

they are going to be part of HYPERLEDGER directly or indirectly.

know thy enemy

the more nodes = delay in propagation. because it takes time between each node getting data to check it and move it on.
but
the more nodes = more copies of the blockchain. so if something bad happens in one locality there are many copies in other localities that no one cares what happens in small area's

more nodes is not about propogation efficiency but about diversity and reducing risk of targetting limited numbers of data holders

SW 4mb is only 2.1mb capacity at best, which yes only reaches 2.1 with 100% adoption of sw keys. so yes its gradual adoption.
by adoption its not about simply running a segwit node its about using segwit keys.
yes people have to move funds to segwit keys to help move to that.
so dont expect instant 2.1mb boost..  infact dont expect 2.1mb boost because not everyone will use segwit keys.

(seriously i cant believe it took you a year to atleast understand/admit that its gradual, but glad to see its finally settling in your mind how sw actually works..even if your still not fully clear in the details)

here is some finer details to help you understand.
the other 1.9mb of buffer space(total 4mb) this can be used for other features that are appended to the tail end of a transaction. such as confidential payment codes.(and yes even your overlord has pre-thought about what to do with the excess buffer weight area for things like CPC)

---

as for a proper consensus growth.. that to would be gradual.. not because people have to switch keys or move funds to anything fancy/different. but because pools will take safe 'testing the water' 'baby steps' with their increase of the blocksize.(just like gradual growth of 2009-2015 even with a 1mb buffer set)

take a look at the policy.h (the miners preferences)
/** Default for -blockmaxsize, which controls the maximum size of block the mining code will create **/
static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE = 750000;

if say the node consensus was 2mb..
[consensus.h] static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_BASE_SIZE = 2000000;
pools will test the water with
[policy.h] static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE = 1001000;
first and check the orphan rate. if all good they will try
[policy.h] static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE = 1002000;
it could take a few days to grow to 2mb or a few months. depending on orphan safety rate.

the only difference is that many would prefer the sizes to be alterable at runtime and set to limits by usersettings adjusting by the node users
after reaching a network consensus.. rather than needing devs to control it and spoon feed new downloads after years of social drama to keep them as kings.

again its gradual just like bitcoin did not jump to 1mb filled blocks over night. even in 2013 we were only at 0.5mb even when we had the 1mb buffer set.

p.s. im sorry that bitcoin cant be explained to you in only one sentance. but please try taking a few extra minutes each day to read beyond your couple sentance concentration span limit. otherwise it will take you another year to slowly grasp any new feature

antpool has 16.7% of the network with 550peta

works out as about 25peta if you want a good chance of 1 block a day

although luck plays a hand in it and having more hash increases the chances.
but without getting too detailed in all the if's and buts/ luck/chance/competition... if you stick to say 25peta

it works out as about 1800-2000 bitmain s9 asics(13.5th).

.. based on very simplified quick maths. as there's no point trying to do accurate maths because there is no 'guarantee'.
like i said its based on averages, luck and chance.

dont worry about CB, he know literally nothing..

much easier to just inform him
if you cant make something half the size then you:
make it do the same thing faster.
make it do more than one task
or even
make twice as many of the items.

end result is more porformance growth

a hard fork is not the exact same as ethereum..
even soft forks can cause intentional splits.

ethereum was an intentional split

to save repeating myself

yep gmaxwell confirms even in a soft(pool only) event bilateral splits can happen too

and when active. segwit pools will still actively ignore non-segwit pools
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/
this is them talking about doing bilateral splits in a soft (pool only) flagging event.

ethereum was not consensus. it was bilateral. --oppose-dao-fork (forcing nodes to BAN opposing nodes and avoid consensus)

knowing the mempool is usually always filled with atleast 2000-4000tx's minimum... 0.2 extra is stupidly low. and is not even going to make a noticable difference.

why bother programming an implementation and spending time waiting for loads of people to download it to get to a NODE consensus of high majority for a one time 0.2mb boost.

if there is going to be a new node consensus required implementation release. it needs to be variable (dynamic) that way we are not relying on any dev's to spoon feed stupid amounts. but where the network can find an agreement on the amount, due to nodes having the ability to adjust amounts independantly and flag what they can cope with. and having consensus move the network forward naturally by the community (node consensus).. not dev overlords

P.S
i presume this topic is just to bait a narative that by mentioning a stupidly low amount the OP will twist it to say 'oh look lots of people are saying no'
where by the OP will then say 'looks like the community is happy to keep it at 1mb'.. but the debate is not about keeping it down. its about HOW to make it naturally grow without dev overlord control

edit

poor gmaxwell moved a post away from another topic so people were less likely to read it.
more twisting the narrative to fit his scripts
but i put the post back in its place as it refers to the twaddle he was rabbiting on about in that topic

---

gmaxwell you spent many conversations in that 0bin trying to pretend matt corallo is not an "employee" of blockstream.

yet again many people see your half twisted wording.
just be honest

matt changed from "employee"  last month and is now "employed" by chaincode labs but remains a 'contractor' of blockstream under the title advisor and his "employment" at blockstream is not terminated. just set to on sabbatical/contractor

you could save yourself alot of trouble by just being honest

https://blockstream.com/team/   (scroll to bottom - advisor)
http://bluematt.bitcoin.ninja/2016/08/08/chaincode/

---

in short. if matt corallo is not part of team blockstream do 3 things.
1. take him off the listing of team members of blockstream
2. dont give him access to your blockstream product 'elements'
3. or admit he is still involved in blockstream .. and man up and say so

lets pretend the miners are doing it.

they would not lose a penny

think about it.

the block they produce containing transactions THEY create. means they get their fee's back.
they dont even need to relay their own transactions to other pools. they just add them only to their own blocks that way other pools who solve blocks inbetween dont nab the fee's, because they dont get them pre block solution..

by having a pool fill its own blocks with its own tx's. when getting accepted/confirmed leaves other pools tx's left in their mempools. causing a back log.
along with blockstreams fee average mechanism then pushes the fee estimation up, which makes everyones tx's more expensive

its only scarce because your boyfriend gmaxwell told his underlings to hold scaling back
fee's are on the increase because your boyfriend gmaxwell took away reactive fee's estimation and implemented average fee estimation (mathematically proven to increase even in low demand)
now in version 0.14 he is even removing priority formulae.. and not even bothering to replace it with a priority mechanism that actually does a better job at reducing spam or punishing the obvious repeat spammers/bloaters while still allowing access to rational, normal transaction flow.

you and gmaxwells mindset is not about code rules to fix bitcoin issues. but playing crappy banker economics games of holding back supply to create demand for commercial services.

if you think bitcoin is about out pricing each other until only a few can actually use bitcoin then you have been spooned by your boyfriend too much.

maybe its time you just jump into gmaxwells bed full time over at the monero hotel and stop popping by bitcoin. because we can see your not actually interested in staying with bitcoin

no satoshi was one person. but satoshi didnt work alone.
only one person used the satoshi pseudonym. but that does not mean that he wrote every line of code and invented all the concepts that built bitcoin

it was a patchwork of many concepts from many people. but satoshi as one person pieced it together. he then got other people like hal finney, sirius etc to help him refine it. but hal and sirius and others did not use the satoshi pseudonym

^ this is the most factually accurate.
just to add a few clarifications
*satoshi did inform his 'references' that he was developing something that used parts of their concepts, though they did not really get back to him.

**by February 2009 there were a handfull of devs helping out. (hal finney was there within the first week of bitcoins public release in January)
by the end of 2009 there were over a dozen+

im frank (meaning: get straight to the point)

if i wanted to kiss ass and dream utopian dreams of over promises and sales pitches of features that dont do as intended, id call myself something else.
if something has a problem you dont solve it by sticking head in the sand
if something has a problem you dont pretend the devs are not to blame
if something has a problem you dont continue to treat the devs as gods.

as soon as people wake up and realise that, the sooner devs realise the community have been lied to and are actually not happy. and the devs hopefully change their ways.

at the moment devs are soo busy trying to stroke their sheep to sleep that they are spending less time fixing problems and more time thinking there is not a problem and leaving them free to do what crap they like.

everyone needs to realise that there should be no gods of bitcoin, devs come and go. kissing their ass wont help... it just makes them feel empowered to mess up and get away with it.
the devs should be treated as employee's of bitcoin. not managers
the nodes are what control bitcoin not the devs.

lets imaging we had a onchain block boost at 2012 due to something satoshi was thinking about back in 2010.

then we had another onchain block size change that was lets say the equivalent to doubling at each block reward having event..
(you can argue and cry all you like about timing and amounts. but just go with this scenario)

now imagine we slap anyone that thinks larger fee's are good and instead kept fee's at lets say 5cents
now imagine DEFLATION didnt move at 10* or 100* every 4 years but instead just 2*(yea low number to play devils advocate), just to keep the reward and bitcoin price on par.

lets see how much pools will earn over the next 40ish years per block



oh look in 36 years+ the pools will be getting over $127K for ~10 minutes work all without having to push users into spending anything over 5 cents a tx
shockingly positive, i know! but i hope it opens your mind to do some scenarios of your own. without being biased to push for LN or pushing to increase fee's to rule out developing countries from using bitcoins mainnet as bitcoins end game

also noting that world wide stats of fiat = people only spend fiat 41 times a month average. (convert to bitcoin tx count) 226,578,732 people to use bitcoin mainnet
yes there are some users that will want to spend 20 times a day.. and that is where they will VOLUNTARILY use LN as a NICHE side service.
but those that only spend less (once a week/month). will use bitcoins mainnet, as they see no benefit of LN

which if you look at world fiat spending stats. reveals that the IRREGULAR spenders vs REGULAR spenders ratio... covers ALOT more people
which if you put that ratio to the bitcoin mainnet tx count and do some maths of a months tx count.
means that in 36 years.. when technology naturally grows and nodes NATURALLY CAN COPE. and LN being just a side service. will all allow over 1billion users to happily hold bitcoin and spend regularly or irregularly without costing large fee's

now here is a little extra thing to think about.
bitcoin will not be a one world currency for 7-10billion people..
for many reasons.
imagine bitcoin only grabs 5% of the worlds population (relax, that is still making bitcoin one of the top 5 "nations" statistically)
you will see that bitcoin, in rational and natural growth, without having to push for large fee's, without having to force people to use LN. without having to halt bitcoin growth.. CAN COPE!!

lol increasing the burden?
8 years of tx data can fit on a memory store the size of a fingernail
the validation of transactions and blocks can be done on a $50 device

yep we are not in 2009 no more.
we have larger capacity microsd card..
raspberry Pi is now raspberry pi 3.


technology has move way way beyond what was available 8 years ago but you advocate holding blocksizes back because........
oh the fake doomsday of gigabytes by midnight.
wake up to reality. it will be gigabytes in 50 years, not 5 minutes

nodes using consensus will naturally scale a dynamic block based on what NODES CAN HANDLE. so it grows naturally over time.. not leading to centralisation!. not leading to gigabytes by midnight. learn consensus

at which time a gigabyte block will have the same 'feel' as 1mb today. people will have petabyte data storage. and be laughing that 50year prior(now) people thought 100gb was HUGE.
much like right now we look back 20 years and laugh when people thought 3gb hard drives were huge

Holliday
your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 and tell activision to never invent Call of Duty, because it requires 50gb storage on average per year(updates, patches, new releases) and the online mode needs atleast 20x dialup speed.

your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 to tell apple to not invent facetime in the future for the reasons of doomsdays of bandwidth needed
your mindset is like you want to go back to 1996 to tell microsoft to not buy skype in the future for the reasons of doomsdays of bandwidth needed

seems you got your money back
seems you are just curious why it came back and wondering should it have came back

short answer if the transaction is not confirmed after a while it just drops off the network as if it nver happened.
it appears coinbase noticed this(in green) and gave you the balance. so you are back to where you were, no loss no gain.

the main reason a tx doesnt get confirmed is that the tx fee isnt high enough. there is no fee that is a 'guarantee' and at the moment the devs are arrogantly avoiding a proper working 'priority' formulae/code to sort the issue. all they are saying is "pay more" like bitcoins limited blockspace should be treated like an auction house whre you have to declare a higher bid then others for a chance.

in a couple decades!! not any time soon

stop faking the need for high fee's as if your trying to hug up to pools. they dont care about the fee's, they see it as a bonus not needed income
stop trying to be subtle about promoting commercial services like LN.

you will end up being the sore loser later when you think you can make income being a LN hopper, but no users will use LN hops due to the fee's per hop.

the scripts are becoming too obvious. the bait and switch doom and utopia stories are too obvious.

higher fee's hurt users.
higher fee's hurt the unbanked adoption
higher fee's are just a bad and rotten way to convert people to think commercial services as the future.

i feel sorry for how badly you have sold your soul to centralist corporations.

sticking head in sand and pretending the dream is a reality will make your life more enjoyable.. but you have to wake up someday. and your dream fades away once the real reality takes over your life.