we are two months away from being one full year on this block size debate: http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgentand within that year blocks have filled up that the red and blue 3d glasses person did not post this morning because we will see all the blocks are filled up all the time now. the more the blocks fill up the more valuable the bitcoins become in relation to fiat currencies. something wrong with this scenario . People don't go there anymore it's too crowded! Bitcoin, so useless you can't use it because there's too much demand |
|
|
|
Ahh... The Wonder And Beauty of a planned economy.
+1 it's actually quite funny, when libertarians turn into communists. No whats funny is that bitcoin has fallen victim to the exact same problem, while under control of the exact same PTB. the existing Financial incumbents are seeing a return on there investment in Bitcoin already, despite the fact that they didn't have to buy one single bitcoin. welcome to the future. Didn't you sell your bitcoins anyway? Why do you care? I mean face it Blockstream won, time to jump ship to a new altcoin. Better luck next time |
|
|
|
The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.
A consequence of inaction. Intentionally not doing what was supposed to be done. I will continue to 'appeal to my authority' you will continue to appeal to yours. It boils down to whether you trust Satoshi, or Back. Inaction in the face of populist rhetoric is the very strength of Bitcoin my friend. You've really turned a corner since joining the mental ward over at bitco.in. sad  Maybe you'll get a block size increase, but not tonight dear |
|
|
|
The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not.
hardly, its those who manage to veto the proposals to allow blockchain grow that exert control what transactions become valid - demand is moving off bitcoin blockchain and your calibrating.  By those you mean 4000 nodes and about 80% of the mining power? The standoff is just FUD and censorship if anyone knows how much the PR cost to keep control of Bitcoin Development you should have an idea. How sustainable is it? most people want to avoid corporate control of bitcoin and you keep telling us Blockstream has no influence, its independent bitcoiners who are corrupted by corporate control. I get it. The standoff is actually called status quo in absence of any interesting option. You didn't really think your merry bunch of mental midgets could fork bitcoin did you? |
|
|
|
I think you need to "try again", that's such a week response. and I suppose the Block limit is just a temporary limit that can be removed when transaction volume approaches the limit.
who said that? surely not satoshi |
|
|
|
The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not.
hardly, its those who manage to veto the proposals to allow blockchain grow that exert control what transactions become valid - demand is moving off bitcoin blockchain and your calibrating. By those you mean 4000 nodes and about 80% of the mining power? |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended  no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen. Does 0.12 include a big flashing sign to remind me that my transaction is spam? I sure hope so. Then I can reenter it with a non spam mindset. No but they have included a new feature called Opt-in Replace-by-fee transactions you need to use this feature if you want to make your invalid transaction valid again. it's a change to Bitcoin that comes with a with a lot of new problems but just ignore them for now. RBF was actually invented by Satoshi and implemented in the original release. Try again |
|
|
|
1MB wins, gavin or hearn or whoever forker or angry banker turns back their spam scrypt. still not tonight dearies.  not sure that argument holds anymore Blockstream have a huge investment from the existing banking incumbents, ironically they are invested in Blocking the stream of bitcoin but not invested in Bitcoin itself. Says the guy pushing for CorporateCoin. Shills keep saying this, but you need to explain it, Blockstream almost has an exclusive monopoly on corporate influence on the development of Bitcoin. Not my problem if shitty Coinbase can only afford Gavin |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen. Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch. $0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying? You keep telling us we should stop bitcoin for coffee, what your encouraging it now. Each transaction is subsidizes by $5-10 in monetary inflation, such ignorance calling a $0.06 increase in fees a win. Core 0.12 claims to only allow transactions that meet a specific centralized control policy to be admitted to the mempool, so yes a win for Core 0.12 nodes and a big middle finger to the rest of the Bitcoin network. Do you have daddy issues? The network, not Core, not centralized policies, decide if your transaction is good or not. If you can't pay then you get the big middle finger indeed, simple as that. |
|
|
|
Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch.
That's why our honey badger is getting his tummy pumped. By a semi tire  Do you see anybody but the sockpuppets sitting beside you caring? I don't |
|
|
|
We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.
Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality. The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize. You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees. A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing. The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!  Exactly, you tell your handlers your shitty spam is not welcomed. Thank you very much |
|
|
|
1MB wins, gavin or hearn or whoever forker or angry banker turns back their spam scrypt. still not tonight dearies. not sure that argument holds anymore Blockstream have a huge investment from the existing banking incumbents, ironically they are invested in Blocking the stream of bitcoin but not invested in Bitcoin itself. Says the guy pushing for CorporateCoin. |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended no the transactions centralized control deemed undesirable were not written to the blockchain but bloated the Mempool, something that was not supposed to happen. Mempool bloat? Meh, just another spam attack. Honeybadger eats those for lunch. $0.06 to get in the next block! Who's buying? |
|
|
|
Spam limit working as intended |
|
|
|
We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.
Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality. The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize. You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees. |
|
|
|
We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.
Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke. Just look at 21inc's Lightning Network, if there is any strong market demand for this kind of functionality, they will be sold out immediately. But the reality is that no one cares about this so called micro payment channel Did you get bought off by the trolls? You used to make sense. 21inc doesn't have a lightning network. |
|
|
|
It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.
Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.
Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy. Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else. You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way. No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure. The fee market is a consequence, not a decision. The fee market is a consequence of a decision. If we decided to increase the blocksize instead we would have a free market for blockspace right now instead of this "fee market". The decision relates to the technical security of the network. The resulting consequences are what they are but they do not allow you to make a strawman of the decision and push the narrative that it is economically rationalized when it is not. I don't expect you to understand or recognize this though. |
|
|
|
It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.
Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.
Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy. Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else. You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way. No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure. The fee market is a consequence, not a decision. |
|
|
|
It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.
Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.
Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.
No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy. Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else. |
|
|
|
Good thing we have the spam limit in place |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
