Please note that this post is supposed to be neutral and informational. If there is anything wrong about the information, please let me know and I will fix it.
All right, let's do this. Mostly balanced response. Just a couple issues. First mistake: There is also a verification slowdown that is caused by large blocks. The time required to verify a block grows exponentially in relation to the block size.
The time required to verify a block does NOT grow exponentially in relation to the block size. The time required to verify a transaction does -- with current implementation -- grow exponentially in relation to the block size. One can indeed create a block consisting of a single transaction large enough to fill the block to max size, and this would be much worse in a double-sized block. But don't mistake a transaction size issue with a block size issue. There are also other ways of mitigating this problem. Segregated witness is a solution to transaction malleability which has a side effect of decreasing the size of a transaction and thus increasing the number of transactions which can be put into a block.
No, segregated witness does nothing to decrease the size of a transaction. Instead, it actually increases transaction size by a few bytes. There is, however, accounting legerdemain involved that simply does not count part of the transaction as included in the transaction. But make no mistake - the entire transaction must still flow across the network, and the entire transaction's bytes are necessary for any validation of the transaction. |
|
|
|
It appears that a very small minority is responsible for the overwhelming majority of disagreements about the future of Bitcoin.
I guess it depends upon what you consider 'a very small minority'.  |
|
|
|
But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit   It was. Well, that plus a nice guard against malevolently-created blocks. A couple of releases ago. But there have been improvements since. Do try to keep up. |
|
|
|
Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.
It always amuses me when the youngsters have no scope of the march of technology. From my associate Tom Coughlin: At the Open Computer Summit Facebook’s Jason Taylor said that six years ago 1 Gbps Ethernet data center rack connections were common. Today, he said that 40 Gbps and even 100 Gbps networks are cost effective. By 2017 Facebook plans to have 100 Gbps network infrastructure in all their data centers. In addition to seeing an end to data center network speeds issues for some time to come many new innovations introduced at the Summit could change the way we store and share content. These hyperscale datacenters are leading the charge to cheap mass bandwidth for us all. |
|
|
|
|
Mildly interesting. Is that our gmax?
|
|
|
|
What missing in action? No way! I miss my beloved chartbuddy. He was so democratic he would never answer anyone.  So terribly sad not to see him posting here  Rage quiting can't be the answer. They'll have to pry this forum from my cold, dead hands. My weird voice will be heard! Somehow, moving to more ... hospitable ... climes, with nary a hissyfit thrown, hardly seems like 'ragequit'. eta: How many times shall we hear 'fork off, already!' before thy will be done? |
|
|
|
The estimated number of investors is shocking:
"According to the SEC, Garza and his companies sold $20 million worth of Hashlets to more than 10,000 investors..."
At least we know a high number of people thought they were are/were using Bitcoins.
^FTFY |
|
|
|
The ban was well deserved.
Will the nature of the offense be shared with the forum's user base? |
|
|
|
To me, it seems that the status quo of bitcoin is the current 1mb limit on the blocksize,
It may seem that way to you. Another way of looking at it is that, until very recently, the max block size was no factor in the economics of bitcoin. WTF? I am only attempting to describe the status quo, and this should not be a controversy. I can spot you the assertion that you are describing the technical status quo. However, maintaining the technical status quo has necessitated a deviation from the economic status quo. My viewpoint is that the technical status quo (1MB max block size) pales in significance to the economic status quo (enough room in the block on average to accommodate all transactions the miners might be willing to include). We can argue about which of these are more significant. What is indisputable is that there is more than one aspect to declaring 'status quo'. Nonetheless, the plan to implement seg wit seems to have reached consensus...
If The SegWit Omnibus Changeset had reached consensus, we would not be arguing over it, now would we? I did not know that we were arguing about seg wit Color me incredulous. The 'community' has been arguing over this since first proposed at 'SBHK'. You've been participating in these arguments. How can you not be aware of them? |
|
|
|
To me, it seems that the status quo of bitcoin is the current 1mb limit on the blocksize,
It may seem that way to you. Another way of looking at it is that, until very recently, the max block size was no factor in the economics of bitcoin. Nonetheless, the plan to implement seg wit seems to have reached consensus...
If The SegWit Omnibus Changeset had reached consensus, we would not be arguing over it, now would we? would you like to attempt another summary of what I just said, or are you o.k. with letting my words speak for themselves?
I think I understand your words. I just think they reveal flawed premises. |
|
|
|
Yes.... get in your little dig, jbreher, and that will help us to have a substantive discussion, no?
Well, you're right. My cheap shot did nothing to move the dialogue along. Sorry. Yet again... ...
I'm not sure exactly how to extract a single coherent point out of your reply without quoting the whole damned thing. Nevertheless, it would seem that you somehow believe that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset reflects some sort of status quo. Yet it is undeniable that this set of changes is a much greater change to the mechanics of Bitcoin than would be a simple 2MB max block size. Let us focus upon that for a bit. |
|
|
|
...if agreements cannot be achieved regarding some proposed change(s) in overwhelming ways, then the status quo would continue to carry on until such overwhelming consensus based agreements could be achieved.
If you were being logically consistent, 'status quo' would not be defined as 'the biggest change to the Bitcoin protocol since inception' -- which is exactly what The SegWit Omnibus Changeset really is -- but rather, no change. But then again, I've not before particularly ascribed logical consistency to your statements... |
|
|
|
Captain & Tennille, OTOH, was a creepy fat dude with a multitraker. Called himself Captain, named his multitracker Tennille. Yeah, creepy, I know. The name's intentionally deceptive.
Well, actually no. Daryl Dragon had already had a decade-long successful career as a studio and road musician and producer, when he decided to quit his gig as musical director for The Beach Boys, taking background signer Toni Tennille with him, launching their own platinum-selling recording artist career. Which of course, has fuck-all to do with Bitcoin. The More You Know [tm] Don't ask me why I know this. |
|
|
|
So The Dream is to have One Money to Rule Them All?
Not the dream - the promise. Hence 21M. And this obsession with "inflationary." So hard for me to understand.
If 1 BTC buys me 1 Cow today, 2 Cows a year from now, and 4 Cows the year after that, I don't care about base money inflation.
You describe the properties of a deflationary money. Again, the promise. If currency units are created willy-nilly, there is inherently inflation. You're speaking against yourself. If, OTOH, 1 BTC buys me 2 Cows today & only 1 Cow tomorrow, I also don't care if the sum total of biitcoins has doubled or halved.
Do you?
Yes, I do. i do not want my store of value to lose value over time. As do most rational people. protip: Currency is not wealth. 'Stuff' is wealth. The amount of 'Stuff' in existence, plus created, is not determined by the amount of currency units. As more and more currency units chase after the same amount of 'Stuff', each currency unit buys less 'Stuff'. I posit to you that for the majority of Bitcoiners, the 21M cap figures very heavily in their decision to get involved. If Bitcoin is not The One True Crypto, then it is just one more in an ever-expanding inflationary sea of equivalents. |
|
|
|
No. We've told you over and over and over that the issue is not the nickel per transaction, but rather that the issue is the hard limit of several thousand transactions per day.
Why you are so dense as to not yet have heard this beggars belief.
Why waste your electricity engaging? You'll receive the same responses every single time. A couple of hundred thousand special transactions is way more important than millions of crappy ones. Let them eat cryptocake and wait for the mythical solutions. ::le sigh:: Why? Because if Bitcoin dies, the crypto revolution is set back a decade. A fundamental precept of the crypto promise is the (eventual) non-inflationary measure. It's the most important part of the promise. If Bitcoin loses the property of being The One True Crypto Money, it is just one other in a sea of competing currencies. A sea of competing currencies, with new ones created at will, can not ever be non-inflationary. And mankind loses its only chance to cast off the yoke of the Vampire Squid. Plus, I really don't want to divest into alts. |
|
|
|
What do you mean by a transaction? It's still instant, and confirms are as they always have been for me.
Well, no. In today's environment, given what you are using for 'transaction', your transaction might still be instant, except it now has the very distinct possibility of being rolled back in 72 hours. |
|
|
|
That is not how fee markets work , there are upper limits to how much spammers andsome users will spend on fees.
FTFY. Especially given the recently published definition of spam as 'transaction accompanied by fee lower than typically included in recent blocks'. |
|
|
|
And somehow BTC's 0.01-0.05$ (depending priority) fees are a problem? For real?
No. We've told you over and over and over that the issue is not the nickel per transaction, but rather that the issue is the hard limit of several thousand transactions per day. Why you are so dense as to not yet have heard this beggars belief. |
|
|
|
Bottem in , eth will get dumped soon => +500 spike within 1 month.
  Funny contrast is funny. I know where my bet is placed. |
|
|
|
Nonetheless, regarding your point about Ripple being bigger than bitcoin, when was this? (any significant period of time between 2013 and present?)...
Good call. I'm pretty sure it was in 2013. Ripple was introduced that year, if memory serves. They were prominently at Bitcoin 2013 conference in San Jose. Regarding your points about bitcoin losing market share. I really doubt that bitcoin has witnessed any close and/or meaningful threat recently, and there is not even one in the wings at the moment (despite various ongoing fear mongering)
I do so hope you are right. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
