Was it not you that implied 780 BU nodes produce blocks?


And what difference does it make, BU is floating face down

what's actually provably tiring is the constant repetition of "people want big blocks" when all the best evidence suggests the complete opposite.


3 times now, Big Blocks hard fork proposals have been rejected by real node operators on the Bitcoin network, which is a pretty reliable measurement.


How many trillions of times have you and others repeated-repeated-repeated this same line that the majority favour big blocks?

You're just an obvious and compulsive liar, that's the real truth isn't it

Do you get all your Margaret Thatcher quotes from women's magazines (replete with "sun tan lotion killed my dog" stories) found in hairdressing salons?

Because it was a magazine just like that that published that so-called Thatcher quote, and Thatcher herself always maintained that she was misquoted. Drop the faux intelligentsia, it doesn't suit you


Except when there exists overwhelming consensus to enact changes, that is.


Furthermore, overwhelming consensus to enact changes has happened dozens of times already in Bitcoin, I've tried explaining this to you already, but it appears you skull is too thick to absorb the factual information. Significant new operators were added to the scripting language just last year.

C'mon, tell us about immutability in context of all the supposedly impossible changes, again (....and again, and again). Or maybe you could explain why you feel the need to keep repeating-repeating-repeating demonstrable falsehoods despite being proven wrong each and every time you utter them?

That's just stacking together as many positive statistics as possible for BU, isn't it? And the way you present it makes no sense.


780 BU nodes are not producing 1/3 of the blocks. Of those 780, less than 20 are the BU nodes actually creating blocks, the rest are non-mining relay nodes.

And even if 780 nodes were BU (and that figure is disputed, there's good evidence that a significant proportion of the 780 number is run by far less than 780 individual people), that's still little more than 11-12% of the 7000 nodes in total.

Do you understand what the word "unanimous" means? If you do, then you'll know that Bitcoin nodes are much much closer to unanimity at ~ 85% of the network than BU nodes are at ~ 12%.

In which case, you mean 128 rounds, not 64. Bitcoin SHA-2 ASICs perform x2 SHA-2 256 hashes for each block header calculation, not x1.

You're conflating 3 things

1. Miner support
2. Forum activity
3. Node support

When it comes to miners and forum activity, a division exists. Mining is hard to fake (although we now know that Bitmain's hashrate share is inflated by ASIC Boost). Forum activity is very easy to fake.


Node support is somewhere in between the 2, it can be faked (remember the NotXT nodes?). But still, it appears as if a growing majority of nodes support Segwit. I would argue this is the most important metric.

And further to that, miners signalling Segwit is beginning to grow again. A consistent >30% is now evident, and removing the ASIC Boost advantage will change that figure even more favourably. When we add to that the undecided miners, we could easily have close to or above 50% Segwit signalling. And that's all is needed, simply the fear of block orphaning by the majority faction has pushed previous soft fork activations over 95% very, very quickly after 50% is reached.

So there's no need to worry yourself so much.

I hate to have to bring this up again.


But where is Google's revenue coming from to pay for all these cutting edge software and hardware projects?

It cannot possibly be from advertising revenue. Who's going to tell me they're the 1 person in the whole world that clicks Google Searh's sponsored links instead of the link they were actually searching for, or that they don't click Skip Ad instantly 99% of the time when using Youtube?

What advertiser in their right mind would pay Google any significant amount of money for such a service, and even if they do (which is incomprehensible), surely running the website with the largest amount of storage and the amongst the largest consumers of bandwidth on the internet eats a significant amount of any of this unlikely Youtube ad revenues?


Where could Google (and they're now Alphabet, Google is simply a division) possibly be getting all the money they need to pay top hardware and software engineers for long term self-driving car projects, multiple operating systems, buying and running robotics divisions, free cloud storage platforms, the list goes on and on, and the more one thinks about it, the more bizarre their revenue model appears.

Does Google Fiber and Chromebook sales produce enough revenue to pay for all this, even if we add that to the likely small revenues from advertising? I doubt that very much.


Where is the money coming from? That much is certain, Google are getting a huge amount of money from somewhere, and they're not using any of thei tech to generate sufficient profits to pay for all their product development and services.

1. Wallet.dat does not contain your node's mempool data (not sure which data file holds it)

2. Point 1 is irrelevant anyway. It's not the contents of your node's mempool that matters. Your node broadcasts the contents of it's mempool to the other nodes it connects to on the Bitcoin network. Nodes 0.13.2 and less only maintain the mempool for 72 hours before they begin to kick unconfirmed transactions out, but 0.14.0 (I think) keeps unconfirmed transactions in it's local mempool for 1 week. That means that your transaction could take 1 week before it is either confirmed in a block, or gradually kicked out of every mempool on every node on the Bitcoin network. If you paid sufficient fees, the former is more likely. If you paid a lower than median fee, the latter is more likely (but not necessarily guaranteed)

No proof for this.

Demand has been exceeding supply due to a confluence of factors not determined by the demand coming from genuine economic activity, everyone is more than familiar with the provenance of spam attacks on the blockchain by now.



Further, your suggestion is based on a fallacious premise from the outset.

Demand must outstrip supply in order that the economic incentives for miners to compete to include transactions in their blocks is established. Users won't actively compete for fees when blocks are not full, and miners in turn will not compete for fees if the difference in profit margin between ignoring tx fees and including them is too small.

You're entirely wrong, therefore. Blocks must be full, so that the healthy incentives of both users and miners to compete in a real transaction market place are maintained, otherwise miners are in too powerful a position to decide whether to include transactions and which transactions to include. Profit motive should determine which transactions are included, not arbitrary whimsy.



Most are hard forks. No different to blocksize increases, "simple" blocksize increases (as you put it) require hard forks too (but maybe some of the transaction efficiency improvements could be programmed as soft forks, as I said, there are many possible ways to improve transaction space efficiency, or on-chain scaling as it should really be called).


So, I'm actually satisfying the title of the thread. Where is the OP, who deigned to be interested in the discussion that they proposed, and that I am tackling?

Okay then, let's put aside that the word "scaling" has 3 meanings in English, and you've decided to choose the 1 single definition that suits the big blocks argument.


Using your preferred definition, scaling is a terrible idea, period. It increases the capacity, while adding the same amount of resources to the burden the Bitcoin network must bear. 1MB in increased "scaling", as you are erroneously using the word, adds 300,000 transactions per day, however many times you add an extra 1MB to the blocksize. The ratio of increase is identical, al the way up the "scale", as you are using the word. A linear, x=y relationship.


Increasing the efficiency of how the transactions are stored is far preferable. Blockspace resources are used less within the same blockspace, as each transaction is smaller, taking up less blockspace, and allowing for more transacitons within the same amount of blockspace.

None of the problems associated with blocksize increases can happen that way, and all of the benefits (which, of course, is actually just 1 benefit: more transaction capacity). And further, blockspace efficiency increases come with even more benefits: smaller transactions can propagate across the network quicker, attack vectors can be disarmed, additional cryptographic features can be added with new signature types, changes can be made to improve the time it takes for initial download of the blockchain. The full list of possible additional benefits from changing the transaction format is too long to mention (and I doubt I could think of them all from the top of my head right now anyway).



Now, I asked for technical arguments, not semantic arguments. You can play with the definitions of words to suit your non-arguments all you like, but can you actually tackle the actual argument I am positing using technical analysis? You failed to do so. By all means, I am interested in real arguments, bring them.

I'm still waiting.

Do you have any facts to support both of your baseless assertions?



When one looks at Gavin's recent despicable behaviour, it's fairly clear that he was concealing a highly biased and bullying nature.

Why would a self-proclaimed free-marketeer, as Gavin Andresen does claim of himself, advocate brute force to remove competition from the marketplace? That's not acting in the community's interest, that's acting in the interest of the minority clique who wished to take the reins of Bitcoin for themselves.

And let's not forget the fantasy land rhetoric you're all espousing also (aside from d5000).


Where is your evidence that a majority of Bitcoin uses have been crying out for bigger-blocks for years and years, as you continue to state? (both explicitly and by implication)


No different to the other big-blocks loud mouths, you're all seeming to present yoursleves talking about it on this forum (and rBTC, lol) as that evidence.



Explain this: why, when 2MB increases were proposed by 2 external dev teams in 2 separate hard fork both rejected? Why has Bitcoin Unlimited's blocksize based consensus voting "solution" fork-coup now been rejected the same way? Why is the balance of big-blockers so disproportionately high on forums in comparison to the decision taken by the aggregation of actual players in the Bitcoin economy?





Both this point (bigger blocks fork-coups rejected three times by BTC community), and the fact that bigger blocks is not a scaling paradigm are highly pertinent answers to the question this thread poses. Will you tackle them, where other big-blockers could not?

Bigger blocks isn't a scaling paradigm, at all.


Where is the technical discussion in this thread that is ostensibly concerned with a technical issue?


I've regularly made this point, backed with actual reasoning, and not the political mud-slinging you are all practicing in this thread.




And I've yet to experience a single refutation of the point: you cannot claim that bigger blocks are a scaling solution, when it's easily demonstrable that only capacity increases can be achieved, at precisely the same scale, irrespective of how much blockspace is added.

The wilful refusal to refute that arguments by any big-blocks advocate speaks volumes: it cannot be refuted.

They're all starting to froth at the mouth, the cheap tricks aren't working.


When will they learn: when you lie in the information age, true information has a habit of catching up with you, fast.

People do point out your total nonsense, but not anyone on your approved list.

Have fun in the word-salad echo chambers you create, with your cod-philosophy, cod-science band of cheap street magicians

It doesn't matter how convoluted, obfuscated and labyrinthine your lies are, lies do not cut it in the information age.


Speak the truth, and know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Schnorr sigs are available today, it exists. The schema for improving tx encoding efficiency was produced by Core devs recently, it exists. The only thing that doesn't exist is the veracity or empirical proof thereof contained in your laughable, execrable word-salad.


You're basically master of waffling nonsense. You're becoming so desperate, that you're performing the techno-babble trolling equivalent of that scene from "The Exorcist" with the mid-air spinning projectile vomiting, spewing out every combination of nonsense buzzwords you can muster as your head does 360 degree spins about your shoulders.




You've been told already, pull your pants up, we don't need to see your naked sophistry, thank you very much

.....and there we have it.

R.I.P, jonald_fyookball, March 2, 2014, 07:09:01 AM - April 6, 2017, 5:03:53 PM


He advocated for big-blocks, so that others would pay the price.

Died in his own BS. He will be gladly missed.

Hey, stop stealing my lines!  

And you're right, increasing the blocksize increases the transaction rate linearly in relation to the factor by which the blocksize is increased. That's not scaling, the capacity increases, but using the network resources at the same rate.


That's where you're wrong.

On-chain is the on-ramp to off-chain, and off-chain solutions are not a suitable for every use-case anyway. On-chain scaling can be achieved, by changing the use of network resources such that those resources are used at a lower rate (Schnorr sigs decreased size compared to the current ECDSA sigs, and improved tx encoding being the primary possibilities IMO, but no doubt more are possible)


But give us all a laugh, tell us about your super secret software designs that will blow the world away, y'know, the endless list of projects that you talk about (for 6 years and counting) and never release

Explain how a market can be free when a government prohibits some behaviour by some market participants (regular people) and not that of others (corporations).


Corporations pay no tax (and frequently get tax rebates for donating to "charities"), flout regulations, receive light-touch fines, and use their dominant position to force smaller competitors out of the market, or they use the precious government rules to "legally" buy up their small rivals with hostile takeovers. As well as 1001 other underhand tactics that abuse the so-called "legal safety net".

You don't understand what "free" means. There are no capitalist nations, it's all carefully crafted fascism, where the state and corporations act hand in hand.