This show that sense is winning

It's more obvious than ever that these corporate nobodies (like Bitpay, Barry Silbert's company and even Bitfury) have been to some extent responsible for the "make blocks too big" agenda all along.

• First, 20 MB blocks, then worry about mitigating the effects later (the GavinCoin BIP101 original)
• Then it was 8MB GavinCoin, quickly revised to 2MB JeffCoin for BIP102
• Thirdly it was BIP100, where the miners were put overtly in charge, lol
• Next it was XT and Classic, that were just BIPs 101 and 102 with a dash of marketing paint on the box
• Then it was Bitcoin Unlimited, where the miners were put covertly in charge, even bigger lol
• Now, Segwit 8MB (2MB + 6MB witness blocks) is the "final" SuitCoin compromise

These people are just desperate. They do nothing but push for too big, and they've had no choice but to come up with increasingly manipulative ways to talk the Bitcoin users into giving them the keys to the kingdom, and accepting the most dangerous blocksize they can spin lies about (the "2MB plus Segwit" being only the latest, which of course really means 8MB Segwit instead of the more sensible, but IMO still dangerous 4MB Segwit)

And all that's happening is that they keep shifting their position closer and closer to Segwit 4MB (which after all is what 68% of the Bitcoin network is ready for)

*sigh*

Neither 4MB Segwit (proposed by Core devs) or 8MB Segwit (proposed by the BarryCoin cartel) do anything to scale Bitcoin. Scaling can happen as a consequence, but neither do anything to change the scale the Bitcoin network runs at, we need actual efficiency gains to achieve that, and none of these 2 Segwit proposal improve the efficiency of the Bitcoin network at all

lol. BarryCoin, #REKT at birth

How many lines of code do you have to change to increase the maximum BTC supply from 21 million to 21 trillion

+1

Barry's never contributed anything, except being Barry Silbert

8MB blocksize (and not 2MB as this is being misleadingly advertised as) is a very big move for 2017. With Bitcoin nodes on the Bitcoin network still idling at 6,500 in number, and with no real change in that number for essentially 2 years, octupling the blocksize looks like a sure way to make that number go down, not up.

Segwit already has 4MB blocks, and it is the compromise that this suit-led coup claims to be. This proposal would set a dangerous precedent; power brokers deciding the parameters that the Bitcoin protocol follows, and not users or technical experts. Follow this fork at your peril, who knows what they will feel bold enough to force on the Bitcoin rules after accepting something as dangerous as Segwit 8MB (what this should be called, and what I'm calling it from now on)

In reality, people can't do something that's currently out of reach for them. The ideal is to keep a full blockchain, but if you don't have the disk space at this time, sure, use prune. You're still helping to enforce Bitcoin's rules, it's just that you can't help new Bitcoin nodes onto the network to download the blockchain, as you don't have the full blockchain to upload to them.

Will Segwit + 2MB make it unfeasible to run a Bitcoin node in your grandmother's home? Or anyone else's grandmother's/nephew's/aunt's/stepfather's/goddaughter's home, not just in a "1st world" country cities with easy access to high quality broadbnad internet, but in Nigeria, or Venezuela, or Malaysia? I've experienced so-called "1st world" internet in the wilderness that cannot handle 1MB blocks, let alone 4MB Segwit blocks (i.e. 50 Mbit/s in a Western country, in 2016)

It's not just about your internet connection. Bitcoin is popular because of Metcalffe's law, the "network effect". The value of the network is calculated by raising the number of participants to the power of 2. We want more people in the network, running Bitcoin nodes, if we want Bitcoin to be as powerful and as valuable as possible, it's no good if ony you and me can get the fibre-optic broadband needed for "2MB" (actually 8MB when you include the 6MB witness blocks) Segwit proposal

When you have that 130 GB database file (also known as "the blockchain"), you're stopping people from cheating the rules of the Bitcoin system.

It's really important that people download the blockchain to use Bitcoin, not just to enforce the rules, but to get the extra privacy and security you get when using the blockchain directly. If regular people weren't running the Bitcoin blockchain, there would be no Bitcoin, and no $2000+ price. When more people use the blockchain directly (with their own +130GB copy on their computer), Bitcoin is more resilient and secure, and hence more valuable.

yes


more data needed for full node = less people running full nodes

the price is the wrong metric to be looking at, look at the node count (i.e. the decentralisation metric)

and it's flat. deadlining, essentially. And that means that those getting into Bitcoin in the current buying spree don't get why it's valuable in the first place, and it's difficult to adequately explain why the 6500 Bitcoin nodes enforcing the consensus rules are so important.

But it's easy to demonstrate that you're clearly not interested in that, the price appears to be telling you all you need to know. You should be learning about why the Bitcoin Network is what makes it valuable, not making unbacked schoolyard-esque assertions with zero computer science to qualify them

That's right, but people are freely choosing the protocol design that Core devs have proposed up to now, to wit, the current Bitcoin exchange rate.


You're making the Bitcoin Unlimited argument: that every single aspect of the protocol should be user changeable, "because decentralisation".


So, go ahead. Create a Bitcoin fork, where the block reward, total 21 million supply, node connections limit, blocksize, signature algo, mining hash algo, everything and anything is a radio button or checkbox for the user to change at will, "because the free market", right?

You'll discover you're wrong, and that using a carefully designed mixture of decentralised user transactions, made possible by unified, singular and centralised rules and protocol designs, is the pragmatic way, i.e. what actually works in the real world, as opposed to your theoretical fetishised ideological fantasy land.

But seriously do it, create a "Bitcoin Democracy fork", I will be buying in alot of popcorn with my (actually valuable) real BTC

What part of "cash" don't you understand?

Cash doesn't have a worst case scenario of 1 hour 30 minutes to make the exchange, cash is as fast as the human's doing the trade can move their hands, think their thoughts and nod their heads.

Bitcoin is a settlement system already, you're just advocating for keeping it that way, so don't pretend that electronic cash is what you're supporting, it's demonstrably not

+1

I'm against the changes in BU and Segwit, the latter threatens the (currently static at ~ 6500) Bitcoin node count, and the former essentially guarantees the death of Bitcoin nodes

But Segwit is the best compromise, so I'm supporting it, against my better judgement. Segwit that reduces the base block to 0.75 MB + 2.25 MB sigs block = 3 MB would be far more sensible, for me.

It's on.


And, of course, the people will win. That's how Bitcoin was designed, and embodies it's purpose.



Decentralisation = Strength in numbers = Vires in Numeris

Barry Silbert is talking out of his ass

Neither Segwit nor 2MB base blocksize are scaling proposals. They keep the scale exactly as it is, ~2500 transactions per megabyte of blockspace.

I made a 140 satoshis per byte transaction today, and it took less than 6 hours. Maybe I'm lucky, maybe you guys are unlucky. Anyone can try it for themselves, pay on the low end of the scale, we call this "free-market capitalism"

Where's the option for "both"?

Both are hard forks, in a way. Or you could maybe say that UASF is like a medium-fork


Both sides claim to have majority support, lets see who's right. Fork!

It's very simple Dennis

Step 1.

Validate the entire Bitcoin blockchain using OpenSSL ECDSA validation

Step 2.

Validate the entire Bitcoin blockchain using secp256k validation


And behold, not only are the results identical, but consequently, both nodes will happily join the Bitcoin network, which itself is comprised of a mixture of nodes with their individual blockchains validated with entirely OpenSSL ECDSA, entirely secp256k ECDSA, or even mixed OpenSSL & secp256k ECDSA validation.


Whether you decide to exercise appropriate compunction (and hush), is, of course, entirely up to you

halych, if you mean the mintchip currrency proposed by the Canadian central bank, then no, that's not what I'm talking about

The bitcoinfees.21.co website, and mostly everyone's brain, is broken.

Look at the graph on bitcoinfees.21.co, it's pretty clear to see that 120 satoshis per byte is what you need to pay, no different to last week. Or last month.