it already costs $80 to fill 2000 toilets. which is $0.04c per toilet.. the solution is not to charge $0.08c in the hope a prankster cant afford $160 every 10 minutes.
because that just irritates the other customers..


but allowing for a potential 4000 toilets at $0.04c and hope the prankster cant afford $160 every 10 minutes, doesnt irritate the customers but can cost a prankster more.

infact. with a 2mb+segwit. theres a potential of maybe 8000 toilets. which would cost the prankster $320 every 10 minutes.

the toilet door automatically opens up every 10 minutes, so the spammer needs to pay the fee and lock the 2000 doors again.
it doesnt take much for someone to recognize the prankster and put him at the back of the line and hope he drops off after waiting 48 hours. after all miners already have code to make no fee payers wait. so noticing 1 prankster trying to bribe the restaurant to lock 2000 toilets in one go is easy to spot.

but im glad you see why people are skeptical about sidechains and using alts, and why people prefer the potential of more indoor toilets

translation.
imagining 0.1btc =10 toilets..
in 2013 the restaurant only maintained and allows customers to use 5 of those toilets.. even today some restaurants only allow 2 of the 10 toilets to be used, and some restaurants allow 9-10 toilets to be used. because it takes soo much effort to maintain and clean the toilets every 10 minutes. that miners decide how much effort they put into it. as it can cost them if they waste too much effort and not make profit at the same time.

so now restaurants want to build another 10 toilets.. not to have all 20 toilets used constantly.. but so that if needed and they know they can manage it and make a profit. open up the 11th toilet for regular use.. then months later the 12th toilet.. then months later the 13th toilet..

eg 1.1mb,, 1.2mb,, 1.3mb...
not 0.9mb->1.99mb instantly

10 lanes??
where is this 10mb proposal.. oh wait its your doomsday imagination..

try living in todays reality of 2 lane proposal

they ignore 0 fee transactions already. they can easily ignore someone trying to send a single transaction of 1mb, just by leaving it in the mempool until it gets dropped

do you think miners are going to risk adding 1 transaction to a block that has more processing time then 2000 normal transactions. just for the sake of $2-$80 in fee's, risking the 25btc reward... or ignore the one tx and process other transactions for a less risky 25btc

agreed and the laughable part.. if a 1mb block was 2000 tx with a 4cent fee ($80 cost per 10 minutes)
then if miners were actually allowing full 2mb, instead of starting off gently at 1.001mb... then a 2mb full block would cost $160.. obviously.

thus bigger blocks cost spammers more.

exactly, if miners dont like a transaction it will just sit in the mempool and eventally get dropped as it doesnt fit miners preferential rules.


 

if the original owner of 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF used a dodgy vanitygen that had a nonce that started at 0
then for someone else, they too can use that same program and generate it in the same time.

however
if the original owner of 1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF used a good vanitygen that had a nonce that started at RANDOM+X
then for someone else, just to find 1Feex would give for examlple
1FeexGFqW9sb6uQMjJrcV6bAHb8ybZjCrH
1FeexqW9sb6uQMbZjCrHG6bAHbFjJrcV8y
1FeexQMbZjCqW6urH9sbAH8ybFjJrcVG6b
over an hour and a half period. and it would take YEARS (even grand children would be pensioners) by the time they happen upon
1FeexV6bAHb8ybZjqQMjJrcCrHGW9sb6uF

depending ofcourse on how much entropy RANDOM was

here we go again, core fan boys talking of 20mb doomsday because they lost the 2mb doomsday debate. lol

and wait.. spammers will fill blocks up?? um noooo
miners control how full the blocks get not users spamming

 and miners wont rush to 2mb right from the start. they would instead dip their toe in the water at 1.001mb, but not at the 75% trigger, not after the 28day grace period. but after the setting is set and then FURTHER hashpower and nodes are added to the mix to ensure a higher chance that their attempts wont get orphaned.. im estimating even when the setting is activated at 75%.. they will wait until over 90% before they move forward,

vanity addresses are easier to hack compared to totally random addresses..

imagine it. if it only took you half an hour for the owner to gen that address.. it wont take long for someone else to follow the same steps.
some of the flaws of vanity address is that some coders base it from the same starting nonce(not random initially).. so others can follow the same steps.

vanity addresses have more entropy than a brain wallet. but not as much as totally random

they dont.. ... often
the admin of the website is usually the culprit who then shifts the blame to someone else to hide his own ill intentions.

that said hackers do hack websites. but sometimes (especially in btc exchanges) its an inside job.

once your inside by either owning the service or hacking. its as simple as 'send to' to move the funds.. its not like you have to brute force the login and then brute force encryption and then brute force private keys.. some sites just need to get passed the login and then the world is your oyster

its because once there are millions of people using bitcoin and not everyone is a computer expert, alot of people want something as easy to use or understand as things like paypal.

wrong i know. but thats how the real world works.

some of the novices believe that if there is such thing as a brain wallet it must has some basic security otherwise its useless and not worth offering. so they overly trust that its secure because its available and popular.

its important to learn the fundementals

using the most basic small word sentences of 6 words
EG "using this and you will lose"
1 in 15625000000000000

using the most basic small word sentences of 12 words
"if you are using these words you will be hacked i promise"
1 in 244140625000000000000000000000000

using the standard common longer word sentences of 12 words
"suddenly increasing entropy should multiply security protection against bruteforce related hacking attempts"
1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000

using random and uncommon words with no sentence structure of 12 words
"amphibology prosopagnosia umbriferous doryphore breatharian criticaster martlet paludal labarum illywhacker gasconade etui"
1 in 3138428376721000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance
 

though the 18000 wallets were using far less than 12 words. and not as random and uncommon as they would think..
so 12-20 random/uncommon words is stronger. its important that its not small common words and important that its not a sentence structure/quote.

the article was titled:

NOT:
cracking ECDSA based private keys derived from random data.

but geeks know the difference. yet laymen / common folk that are just bitcoin users not computer geeks dont know the difference and will think bitcoin is broken

quote from similar topic due to relevance

a brain wallet is where you choose the words.. and most of the time brain wallet users choose between 1-6 common words that are part of a known phrase..

a seed wallet is where 12-20 RANDOM and UNCOMMON words are used.

the article stated
that is a 0.0000018% success rate.

now although there are 171,000 words in the dictionary. its estimated that only 3500 words are used commonly.

so imagine the password is 1 common word.
thats a 1 in 3500 chance of a hit.

so imagine the password is 2 common words.
thats a 1 in 12,250,000 chance of a hit.(3500 x 3500)

so imagine the password is 3 common words.
thats a 1 in 42,875,000,000 chance of a hit.(12,250,000 x 3500)

som brute forcers know that even in the 3500 common words, some are not used, so they could get the odds down. they also know that when using more than 3 words its more likely that a sentance structure was used (phrase or quote) so they know what words naturally follow grammatical structure and what words dont naturally follow each other in a sentance.

so although the odds of having 12 common words can be upto:
1 in 3379220508056640000000000000000000000000000 chance.
brute forcers can reduce that down to:
1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance.
just by employing some grammatical rules to cut down on the variations possible.

which is still extreme for 12 word sentence.. but. its highly important to not use sentances/quotes that follow grammatical rules. it is also important to not use the 3500 common words. that way 12 random non common words can be:
1 in 3138428376721000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance.

so in short a brain wallet of 3 common words is:
1 in 42875000000 chance

so a seed of 12 random and uncommon words is:
1 in 3138428376721000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance.

a datacenter with multiple nodes running... seems like a sybil attack

if your going to rely on a third party service to host a node.. you might aswell just use blockchain.info wallets as once you brush away the buzzwords and glossy concepts.. the fundementals are all the same.

infact apart from having the wallet file on (hopefully) separate hard drives.. the data is all the same so no need to have 100 copies of a blockchain in one data center. just need separate wallets

ethically.. people would upgrade their clients first. and miners would monitor things like bitnodes to see if people are prefering 2mb.
then miners will add their flag, ifthey see significant rise in desire of 2mb..

the miners flag which would be monitored on the blockchain (the 750/1000 blocks showing the flag).. (separate vote to bitnodes)

where there would be a 28 day grace period as extra breath if it reached that trigger.. and after the 28 day grace period, miners are still not automatically going to make big blocks until they are sure their attempts wont get orphaned..

as i said all of the scenario above is the ethical way to do it. and so far, thats what seems to be happening.
2 things that may differ is that miners put in their block flag before people are showing a majority of 2mb nodes. and the other thing is once the miner consensus has been reached and the 28 day period is over some miners might stupidly push forward. which could lead to their blocks getting orphaned. which would mess around with merchants who accept minimal confirmations.

its more complicated then that. but i tried to simplify it as possible into logical and real scenarios. and not the dooms day illogical crap some blockstreamers are spouting out

there is also a proposal for ANY client to add in a basic 2mb rule. but blockstream are pretending its impossible for them to implement

well this topic is for the core fanboys.. to advertise their love for core and their hate for anything not core..
so your "we" i assumed and thought was the royal 'we' of core fanboy trying to promote cores roadmap.
im guessing your talking about some other altcoin that is not bitcoin.

if its related to bitcoin.. meaning your payment channel is LN.. then that also adds bytes to a tx..
if your talking about an altcoin. then i am sorry to confuse you with the core fanboys

maybe Bit_happy should have said 7 days..  because i dont think Lauda realises that 1000 blocks is just 7 days..

i said it ages ago 10,000 block trigger(70 days) PLUS X months grace period for the remaining 25% laggers to finally move over seems better than 7days+28

have you actually looked at the data..

signatures =70bytes

changing the flags and other stuff add bytes.. changing the OP_return from 40 to 80 bytes to allow confidential payments.. adds bytes..
thats just 2 examples of the multitude of things that are going to add bytes to the main block.

so dont expect larger capacity for long.. by the time people have seen segwit running for a few months to trust it has no bugs. and then update their clients.. the new features would have bloated up any saving the signatures would have made.

segwit is not a capacity increase. its a diversion of data to allow for more features..