Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling. You're not a fan of reading comprehension, are you? Why are most Blockstream sockpuppets retards? |
|
|
|
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
It can't. Stop spreading false information. Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks. I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke. |
|
|
|
No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!
What if I told you that keeping bitcoin crippled will assure the centralization (and later failure) of bitcoin as it doesn't allow more participants to hit the network? Consider that currently about 1-2M people own BTC. There are about !!3300M!! internet connected users currently. The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB. Blockstream is incentivized to keep the protocol crippled and under their control, so sidestepping them is highly important. If it won't happen bitcoin will remain centralized. Also, please consider that centralization/decentralization is not an exact property, but a spectrum. |
|
|
|
|
The BlockstreamCore apologists should open their eyes.
Bitcoin needs a fork or its network effect will disappear.
|
|
|
|
can someone explain to me what is wrong with the classic proposal, i currently run a core node and am thinking of running classic, is it not the case that the 1mb cap is slowing bitcoin down? how can we move to mass adoption if we dont up scale bitcoin.....?
The main problem is that it's not under the control of Borgstream. -s |
|
|
|
|
Just started playing with SIA. Very promising.
Do you have a subreddit for it?
I wish you the best of luck.
|
|
|
|
|
The price is based on supply and demand.
|
|
|
|
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.
I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size. I'm not saying that I can predict anything, only my opinion. (mind the I think part) As for your opinion that miners do not give a shit about users is obviously wrong. Without an userbase/satisfied participants they have no bitcoin mining business. Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block. Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets. I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks . Mind that I'm open to alternatives, but the keeping of a crippling limit. |
|
|
|
what will happen otherwise? they will simply continue to use core? because i think they don't known how consensus, work if they think they can instigate a change in this way
nothing will happen by december, and certainly mainers are not in favor of XT
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code. I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience. Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly. |
|
|
|
|
XT and BIP 101 FTW.
It's time for participants to rise up against the tyranny and lies of Blockstream/Core.
|
|
|
|
We always had leaders in Bitcoin. Saying something else is just romantic BS.
The current problem is: We don't agree on who our leader is.
Decentralization/consensus is a nice wet dream, but in the end it just can't work.
Say we need 90% of the mining power to make a change: That means a charismatic leader, who influences 11% of the mining network, can block every change.
That's the whole point in my humble opinion: I supposed that we did not need any of this crap since BTC was "backed by mathematics" But we have people here who want to play with mathematics. And eventually we might end up like the crappy Wall Street world: when they started to play with mathematics introducing the latest high tech finance we all know where we went. By the way, thanks to who replied: this always helps to shed some light on the matter. This whole "backed by mathematics"-business is also just romantic BS. It's obvious, that with technology like Bitcoin, which could be a real game changer, that there will be political decisions, eventually. And you just can't solve a political question with mathematics. Political questions (eg: settlement layer vs payment system) has to be decided by the ecosystem. Blockstream and cronies just thrown a wrench in the system, trying to suppress freedom of information and choice. |
|
|
|
|
It's not just difficult time for bitcoin but the whole crypto scene.
If Blockstream comes out with a victory in January then we can pretty much wave good bye to the idea that decentralized crypto currencies are anti-fragile.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not about the ecosystem deciding. And surely not noobs like you.
I rest my case. |
|
|
|
Exit bitcoin you idiots.
Lol, guess why the exchange rate went down. More and more people realize that currently it's BlockstreamCoin. I'll buy again if this company loses control over Core development, or the fork happens. |
|
|
|
|
They don't have to watch it. They only need to ask theymos for the db or any information they require.
|
|
|
|
How much Blockstream pays for trolls and shills?
Both Blockstream and XT are awful. Why can't I use Bitcoin as it is?  They are not the ones who spread lies and FUD and attack the other side. How am I supposed to know what to believe? All I see is two groups needlessly shitting on eachother. blockstream wont touch bitcoin's core whilst bitcoin xt is a coup on the very fundamental of bitcoin by two usg moles. no need to overthink this. core devs consensus is anti xt. hearn is no core dev, and gavin, chief scientist of my ass working at the very center of tptb at MIT does not even have a phd. easy. Ah, the authority card. How unexpected. /s Bitcoin is not Core or XT but the mutually accepted rules by the network building on the historical bitcoin blockchain. Consensus shouldn't mean the consensus of 4 Blockstream developers who have apparent conflict of interest. let the ecosystem decide. Back and his gang already acted unprofessionally, despite their PHDs...I didn't see hearn or Gavin attacking anyone. |
|
|
|
Why not bigger blocks without XT?  As it stands 4 developers from Blockstream control Core development. So much for decentralization... Considering all the drama, lies and FUD spread by Blockstream sockpuppets I will never run Core implementation unless they lose control over it. I can't comprehend why people are afraid of XT. It's open source software (a fork of Bitcoin Core). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
