Since when does sending 32 MB blocks on any version of Bitcoin actually work in reality? Since when does downloading 14.6 TB of data sound enticing? Are you mad?


Since when has there been 6 billion Bitcoin users? Are you mad?

I am considering a slightly different approach, to mitigate the partitioning risk completely.


A stage 0 is needed. This stage should detect prevalence of SegWILL nodes on the network, and only invoke stage 1 once a 51%  activation threshold has been reached and maintained for X blocks. It seems to me that the version bits could be used to signal this. Maybe it would be a good idea, for transparency's sake, to code all 3 stages into a single client, and use the same mechanism for invoking the 2nd (BU blocks not relayed) and 3rd (non Segwit signalling blocks not relayed) stages.

This means abandoning the strategy of preventing SegWILL nodes from being detected and mistreated on the network, as realistically, this is an "all-or-nothing" strategy overall, a majority of nodes must run SegWILL for the strategy to work at all, and so the issue of counter attacks against identifiable SegWILL nodes is not relevant in that necessary outcome.


Thanks for all the comments so far.

If hard disk space and bandwidth were the only issues, you might have a point.

HD space and internet speeds are more serious issues than you're imagining anyway; your hard disk is big enough, your internet is fast enough, your wages can afford all those things, and your internet and phone companies can afford to upgrade their infrastructure, all in your region of the world.

But, guess what? You're not the only person that exists, in the only region of the world. Not everyone is experiencing the exceptionally good conditions, that you are fortunate enough to have. Other people aren't so fortunate.


Not only is Bitcoin working perfectly well for those who know how to use it (clearly you're struggling to understand how to figure out the needed transaction fee), but BIG BLOCKS IS NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION.  

And

BIG BLOCKS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS SOLUTION

do I need to make that clearer?

You're refusing to answer the question? It's because you can't, isn't that right? It contradicts your Ideal Money dogma, doesn't it?


What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

You're refusing to answer the question? It's because you can't, isn't that right? It contradicts your Ideal Money dogma, doesn't it?

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant


Respond with actual reasoning please, it's not too much to ask, I think you can do it

There is an error in this sentence. Bugs cannot be submitted to github repositories, but bug reports can be submitted.


Please correct your error, others reading may be confused by the lack of clarity. Sorry if this seems nitpicky.

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

Why aren't any of you capable of -

• reading this question
• answering this question

I actually want to hear your erudite answers, but you seem highly adverse to reading or answering the actual question I'm asking.

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

Why aren't any of you capable of -

• reading this question
• answering this question

I actually want to hear your erudite answers, but you seem highly adverse to reading or answering the actual question I'm asking.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1822954.msg18177918#msg18177918


There's nothing slanderous about stating facts. And what I stated was a fact; the programmer who devised FlexTrans and xThin produced poor designs with large quantities of bugs that are sufficiently bad that they span the broad codebase in the case of FlexTrans i.e. bugs that are essential aspects of the actual overall design, and so cannot be fixed without using a different design altogether.


designing incompetently is incompetent. Pointing that out is not impugning someone's reputation, it's an important part of what their true reputation actually is. But sure, keep shrieking about ad hominem attacks when you simply don't like the facts the other party presents, go right ahead

When there were 2 people worldwide using Bitcoin, it could handle 32 MB blocks, but all the blocks were 1 kB or less at that stage. Because only 2 people were using it


When dozens began to use it, the same person who allowed 32 MB network messages (there was, in fact, no explicit limit on blocksize at all, it was "unlimited") changed their mind, and added the 1MB blocksize limit.


All of which you know, you lying scammy little shit

3 things


1. What business accepts these alts? It rhymes with "shogun"

2. Why not? Is it becasue of Bitcoin's coveted MASSIVE AMOUNT OF CUMULATIVE HASHES PROTECTING EVERYONE'S BTC? It is, isn't it?

3. Altcoin exchange rate or market caps mean nothing. Fiat money is free to those with the printing press or access to the right kind of credit. Rich adversaries of Bitcoin can empty their toilet paper into altcoin markets all they want, the market liquidity will drop right out when they move onto the next coin.

So, again:

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

You're talking about a system where banks are the sun around which planetary markets evolve, which is very much contrary to what Mises and Hayek wrote, of whom I'm familiar.

The markets and banks using an effectively closed shop to create over-complex financial instruments that essentially allow them to surreptitiously fix prices is not an example of banks playing a useful role, it's in actual fact the soft-fascist facsimile of communistic price fixing.

It would help your credibility a great deal if you weren't putting massively exaggerated words in my mouth. I specifically did not say "most or all" trans-oceanic cables are at risk of breaking, I gave a specific (and HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE) political scenario where some important cables could be broken. Your arguments are still circular, you proved me wrong by saying "it's improbable, because I say it's improbable"

Again, why are you planning for optimistic scenarios when we're supposed to be treating this like an actual engineering problem, where that approach FREQUENTLY AND DEMONSTRATIVELY LEADS TO FAILURES NO-ONE FORESAW. Where is your safety margin?


Your imagination for transaction rate increases seems strangely limited to the block size only, considering I asked for an ACTUAL RATIONALE.


Why not improve the efficiency of transaction encoding FIRST, which is also a hard fork

Why not explore the possibility of decreasing the block interval target FIRST, which is also a hard fork

Why not explore the possibility of separating tx and coinbase blocks (and making the tx block interval more frequent) FIRST, which is also a hard fork

Why not do everything that isn't the most dangerous option FIRST?


With some combination of ALTERNATIVES, WHICH EXIST, the x3 increase in tx rate from 4MB could achieve the same exact effect that your inherently more dangerous suggestion does. Why not play it safe, like an ACTUAL ENGINEER. It's only a highly important development in human progress, after all

No, what useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant

Abandon the big blocks rhetoric if you believe that.

The bigger blocks approach is no different in scale irrespective of how big the size is, the rate of transactions increases 1:1 with the increase in blocksize. Not scaling is not scaling.

What useful role can banks play in Bitcoin at all? Everything they can do, the individual can do better. If you mean that everyone becomes their own bank, I guess the statement could be sensibly argued, but I doubt that's what Nash meant