Rank     User Name   kH/s   XZC/Day   BTC/Day

1          Slut              555   102.218   0.6951
2          anonymous   385   70.940   0.4824
3          anonymous   327   60.345   0.4103
4          anonymous   229   42.137   0.2865
5          anonymous   219   40.283   0.2739
6          anonymous   209   38.518   0.2619
7          anonymous   145   26.673   0.1814
8          anonymous   136   25.098   0.1707
9          anonymous   120   22.063   0.1500
10         anonymous   118   21.699   0.1475
11         anonymous   110   20.199   0.1373
12         anonymous   101   18.624   0.1266
13         anonymous   95   17.581   0.1195
14         anonymous   92   16.895   0.1149
15         slugmandrew   83   15.256   0.1037

----------
supper hash

You're right - there is something in your statements that I don't quite get. If 75% is not consensus, then neither is 95%. So... what's your point?

Yet The SegWit Omnibus Changeset grows blocks.

Just to be clear, your argument is that increasing maxblocksize centralizes the network of non-mining, fully-validating nodes, by reducing the absolute number of such nodes, due to increased per-node resource demand?

What if the number of bitcoin users increases by by some factor due to new entrants, and a few of them fire up nodes, such that absolute node count rises while percentage drops? Is that an increase or decrease of decentralization in your definition?

Sure. In one sentence. I thought it was crystal clear already. So here goes - to wit: Upon activation of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, previously fully-validating nodes are rendered non-validating nodes, as they are incapable of validating SegWit transactions.

Oh hell with it - I'll answer first, though it really be your turn. Better - I'll answer in the form of a question...

And how is kumquats not hairbrushes?

In no sane set of definitions for 'bigger blocks' and 'centralization' are they equivalent. English much?

Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.

Now here's a question for you -


As:
a) you think SegWit is The One True Way;
b) you cede that SegWit requires more resources of a fully-validating node than the status quo to represent each transaction; and
c) you seem to value centralization very highly;
then:
is your true goal to 'decentralize' by reducing transaction count to zero?

Now, it is _possible_ that bigger blocks _might_lead_to_ centralization. It is also possible that it does not.

Bull fucking shit. It turns fully-validating nodes into non-validating nodes.

So you cede that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands. Excellent. First Lauda, now forevernoob. Who else?

Just no. The statement you made -- which I was obviously replying to -- was thus:

Some uninformed or unthinking bigblocker minority, yes. But such are not my pals. My bigblocker pals are crying that transaction volume cannot increase further, due to a stupid limitation in the expression of the code.


Again, it appears to me that you are parroting a mischaracterization. You ought to get out of the echo chamber from time to time.

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction forkbranch of the data, but also the witness forkbranch of the data.

The sum of the transaction forkbranch of the data, plus the witness forkbranch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

Are you saying that SegWit will be a bigger bump than 2MB blocksize increase and therefore bloat the chain?


For the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. 'Cause maths.


If your definition of 'bloat' is 'bigger', then ... ummm.... duh. Yes. What is the point of your question?

The point of my reasoning above is to show that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands.

...sure, yaaaa, no one is having any difficulty with TX times and figuring out the appropriate fee, no one.

... it's not that the fee are too expensive, it's that they prohibit micro payments. and make TX fees unpredictable and in turn make TX times unreliable.
and moving TX off chain only removes miners fees revenue, somthing we should be looking to grow...

all the while we know 4MB or less is just fine, and won't hurt decentralization, and its more then likely that technical limit  will grow as improvements are made and internet speeds grow.

on top of all that, there's very strong evidence that miners would not push beyond the technical limit even if there was no arbitrary limit.

also, the idea of a central org dictating limitations is blasphemy!  

What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.

There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.

The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.

Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.

The only reason you could possibly think that is that your picture of us bigblockers is formed by mischaracterization of what we actually want. Instead of getting your picture of bigblockers' motivations and desires from your fellow smallblockers, you might want to read what we bigblockers are actually saying.

The most secure blockchain, the most ecosystem, and the most user base -- at least for the moment. My fear is that by driving transactions off the main chain, these advantages will be ceded to another crypto.

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction forkbranch of the data, but also the witness forkbranch of the data.

The sum of the transaction forkbranch of the data, plus the witness forkbranch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.

fully agree with you.. them bigblockers who love blockstream and want 5.7mb blocks. have lost faith in bitcoin.
they complain it cant scale
they say the only solution is to move to different layers and sidechains(altcoins).
they argue and say anything that is part of the open community is bad because they only want one business to destroy bitcoin now.

if they really want to have blockstream control. maybe they should just move over to "liquid" and play with them altcoins, pretending its bitcoin but faster..

they really need to just admit that they want to bloat bitcoin so their favorite altcoin can take the bitcoin fame..

Still here for rescue and try to get back ALL into the boat + helping to start THINK BIG !

(hope this bRAKEs the ICE a bit  where other in charge fail)

Have you ever personally talked (in real life) to an ex-inmate who gave details about the reality of life in prison?
Yes or No?
ps. My God man, some things do not require "research", the common knowledge exists for a reason.

Whatever, that article is a year old and is reporting about the holding jail he was in during his trial not the permanent facility he's in now. Ross is a cute guy. I hope if I end up in prison I'm lucky enough to have a tight little white ass like him sharing the cell block with me.  

Why don't you just try researching the prison system and human rights websites? Instead you focus on one, probably inaccurate, report about the particular short term holding facility he was in a year ago. If he hasn't been raped in prison yet it's only because he really enjoys dominant gay sex and gives it away willingly.

Last I heard, "tutoring inmates" in Federal prison is equivalent to a desperate scream to use some lube.
Former idealist Ross Ulbricht is paying a very high price for his Silk Road adventure.