Also, what?: "All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin"
That would be like me saying that all the 1MB people think that increasing the blocksize should not be any part of scaling the blockchain. OF course they don't, do they?
bett, you talk the largest amount of shit out of almost everyone. XT proponents dismissed every other proposition for any reason they could think of, they rejected: - Lightning
- Decreasing the block interval
- 2-4-8
- IBLT
- Separating tx blocks from coinbase blocks
- Dynamic cap
- Countless others I cannot recall currently
"XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin" is what this thread has largely been about, you and others variously rejected a whole catalogue of more credible/responsible scaling schemes. Oh, and what a surprise; another XT shit-talker (you, bett) has come back to say: "XT wasn't so bad!". What next? Presumably: "Have you considered that XT was the answer all along?" Dearest Carlton, I have never *ever* said larger blocks is the only way. I have categorically stated the opposite on many occasions. Which begs the question are you even listening? bett, you're wriggling visibly. I never said you said what you said you never said: in other words, you're using the same BS strawman tactics that your friends were so fond of using. Tell me more about how all XT proponents were not essentially presenting one choice only or certain doom. Oh no, that's right, you were talking shit. I can't stop you misinterpreting everything I say so it fits your preconceived notions, but I can just keep restating what I think. Anyone else who reads this thread can then come to their own conclusions about what I think. Any attempts at misdirection will then hopefully seen for what they are. I don't think the only way to scale bitcoin is through blocksize increase. This is in direct opposition to the repeated claim by you and others that all XT proponents claim its the only way. It only looks like wriggling if you think I have some hidden agenda. I don't I write exactly what I think, and leave it up to everyone else to misinterpret it! |
|
|
|
Those things are way outside the scope of a "ELIJustBorn"  |
|
|
|
Also, what?: "All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin"
That would be like me saying that all the 1MB people think that increasing the blocksize should not be any part of scaling the blockchain. OF course they don't, do they?
bett, you talk the largest amount of shit out of almost everyone. XT proponents dismissed every other proposition for any reason they could think of, they rejected: - Lightning
- Decreasing the block interval
- 2-4-8
- IBLT
- Separating tx blocks from coinbase blocks
- Dynamic cap
- Countless others I cannot recall currently
"XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin" is what this thread has largely been about, you and others variously rejected a whole catalogue of more credible/responsible scaling schemes. Oh, and what a surprise; another XT shit-talker (you, bett) has come back to say: "XT wasn't so bad!". What next? Presumably: "Have you considered that XT was the answer all along?" Dearest Carlton, I have never *ever* said larger blocks is the only way. I have categorically stated the opposite on many occasions. Which begs the question are you even listening? Let me make it clear, I think we need bigger blocks and I backed XT as the only solid implementation. I love IBLT, if I was a shit hot bitcoin coder I would be all over it but I'm just some crappy rails dev so I'm not. I think LN is a good idea and is probably in fact *Necessary* Decreasing the block interval is just bigger blocks. 2-4-8 is bigger blocks. Dynamic Cap is bigger blocks. Gimme an implementation already!? Separating tx from coinbase I don't know about off the top of my head, so I can't possibly have been against it. If you are confused after this then I think it's you, not me that needs to think hard about post content. |
|
|
|
Lauda, explain Segregated Witness to me like I'm five.
And to me as if I'm just born At the moment everything goes in the block. With segwit, only the important stuff goes in the block. The other stuff goes into an 'attachment'. This way more transactions can be put into a full block without increasing the blocksize limit. |
|
|
|
I'd like to send a big warm middle finger to:
1. All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin. If 8mb was designed to be for 2 years, I guess they will shut up for 1 year, with 4x more transactions in 1mb blocks, and let the fee market develop.
This is a shell game being played by technocrats who are trying to fool the rubes. The solution involves an accounting change of what is to be counted as belonging in a block. It does not affect the amount of data that needs to be transmitted across the network and verified quickly by the nodes. Perhaps there is an implicit assumption here that network/bandwidth constraints as a proxy for increased centralisation risk is not all its cracked up to be. What I do like is that segwit does address the very valid concern of people parking everything including the kitchen sink in the blockchain, which is direct threat to how many transactions can fit in a block (and therefore TPS). Also, what?: " All the XT-folks who believed increasing the block size is the only way to scale Bitcoin" That would be like me saying that all the 1MB people think that increasing the blocksize should not be any part of scaling the blockchain. OF course they don't, do they? |
|
|
|
hands up those who are rooting for equus to win... *raises hand*  |
|
|
|
I dunno man, I think technical analysis of this sort is bullshit. Sure trends and supports and channels and shit is common sense and real but like "oh look its tracing out the mother marys left tit that means it'll drop 20% by the end of the week" is just cloud watching bs.
Yes, TA is essentially a psuedoscience, but what makes it sorta real is that it's a self-fulfilling pseudoscience. Mother Mary's left tit itself doesn't cause the price to drop, but if everyone thinks that's what it means, then they will sell... and thus the price does indeed fall. See how it works? The lemmings are all predicting what the other lemmings are gonna do, so it's the ones that know how the other lemmings think that can break in the correct direction first and win. So if you're a good trader, you don't use TA because you believe it, you use it because someone else does. Anyway, about the main topic, yes that does look like a classic head and shoulders at the moment. Like all pseudoscience, TA doesn't always hold, but if it does in this case, the price probably will drop a little bit, likely in the low 300s. I don't even see why that's a bad thing. So are we all FUCKED? No. OP resorted to attention-grabbing and fearmongering rather than using a reasonable, accurate title such as "I see a bearish head and shoulders pattern forming". I don't blame him; that sounds like a boring thread that not many people would've clicked on. You are partially right. Much of trading (especially shorter time frame) is trading against other traders rather than speculating on the true value of the underlying asset. However, I wouldn't call it pseudosciene. More like "art and science". And there are also real reasons why TA works to identify what traders are doing and are likely to do ,not simply what they believe. People are entering and exiting positions in the market for a million different reasons. This is about as right as gets. When theres no fundamental beliefs, traders gon' trade TA. Then when a wave of fundamentalism hits, TA gonna get washed away. Trustorybro. |
|
|
|
|
<open brackets>nagle_palm.jpeg<close brackets>
|
|
|
|
I am loving watching the ludicrity (patent pending) of kwuckduck develop. It's like when we were in the late parabolic rise stages and more and more people kept telling us all about moon. Everyone knew the burst was coming but those posts just dew out the tension, waiting in anticipation for that one person that was perfectly and spectacularly wrong. Now its all about the last bear standing. That last bear (if they even have any skin in the game) will be added to the legendary list, which so far looks like this: 1. Nagle |
|
|
|
|
how does this work if there are asks in the 360 to 365 range
|
|
|
|
If anything we should get a clearer idea of where this is going this weekend but all the while Bitcoin continues to be awesome and has no foreseeable obstruction in sight. . Lets hope so. It would be pretty annoying if something that could have been easily averted proved to be problem! |
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake? You also wrote That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
which is what I was mainly addressing. Spare me the rest of your platitudes.... The second sentence was referring to much of the discussion on this thread. This was not clear and I apologise for the confusion this may have caused. (EDIT: so we agree then? the developers aren't arguing like the petulant children on this forum and will find common ground) |
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums. Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt? Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there. Starting to be a bit bored with the rhetoric manoeuvres that implies exactly what they are imposing here with their "opinions stated as facts". If you can call it opinions though.. Magic futuristic numbers and rainbow mass projections imho. Clearly THE NETWORK has consensually rejected XT and BIP101. At this point, I wonder what is the percentage of shills vs idiots amongst these forkers. (oh and yes that's an opinion, and a fact) I post here because I think it is a good place to discuss bitcoin. On the whole I like the community. I don't subscribe to the belief that there is rampant censorship either here or on r/bitcoin. I think that all that commentary is cliched nonsense from people who think they are the first person to ever be butthurt on the internet. I don't think there is some grand conspiracy afoot. Though I do think that different people have different motives. I accept that a person's fundamental beliefs about what bitcoin is/should be may lead them to have different opinions about what is desirable in terms of protocol decisions, or development. I'm not shill or an "idiot forker" I'm a bitcoin enthusiast who believes that bitcoin can revolutionise 'money' at its very core. I think that is desirable and so I think that anything that furthers that end is also desirable. I believe in the wisdom of the crowd vs governance. I am probably somewhat libertarian in my outlook. I tell you these things so you can know who I am and because I am not afraid of people knowing who I am even though they may try to use that against me. I think the massive hypocrisy displayed by both 'sides' is embarrassing. Each accuses the other of objectionable conduct, seemingly oblivious that they themselves are doing the very same thing. They are the petulant children I am referring to, and they are not 'this forum'. I stopped posting on this thread because I didn't like the place I was being taken. I've started posting again because after reflecting I think I can avoid making the same mistakes. I think the truth will emerge, regardless of hyperbole from either side. I think the wisdom of the crowd will prevail. That does not mean I think the crowd will choose big blocks, it means that I think if bigger blocks are needed then I think that something will happen to ensure that bigger blocks happen. I think if they are not needed, it will be because something happened that obviated any need. I'm really happy with the way things are going at the moment, despite what anyone else might think on the subject. |
|
|
|
We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.
Maybe you're not looking hard enough? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this" I'm going to clarify what I posted because I don't really understand why you have responded the way you have. "petulant children arguing on a forum such as this" refers to the people on this forum that argue like petulant children "but, if the developers are not" is a clause, which is prefixed by the statement "We don't know," which speaks to the nature of truth - such that unless you are one of the developers then you can't really know for sure however I included a subclass in parenthesis (and I believe this to be the case) to indicate that whilst I may not know I believe it to be the case (that "the developers are not"). You can re-arrange this sentence thusly "I believe the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this. Though, it is not possible for me to know that is a fact." however one can never really know". The reason I didn't write it in this order is because the words at the beginning of the sentence (comment on nature of truth) are less important and it is in the readers nature to focus on the later part of complex clause than the earlier part. This is why the last part of the sentence is drawing attention to the fact that people on this forum argue like petulant children. This is a contrast to to what the developers are (hopefully) doing. The very last part of that first sentence was the most important part though ", then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions." That's the bit i really wanted to stress, which is why its at the end. Your response implies that you thought I said the opposite. Is that intentional, or just a genuine mistake? |
|
|
|
Despite this I still think we need bigger blocks, and in taking this road I think that the pain Gregory described above would increase. I think this is growing pain though and although its undesirable I don't think its symptomatic of terminal illness.
I absolutely have faith that "development" has some big answers to this, and that protocol/software improvement will be the thing that addresses the challenges we currently face with infrastructure requirements.
Have faith in development or whatever, just let the developers work on proper scaling solutions. opinion stated as fact Essentially I think we can have it all, and that those that frame the debate as being mutually exclusive are too married to their position to see the big picture. Big picture: "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010 And it is exclusive from being highjacked with broken democracy social brigading. opinion stated as fact Bandwidth requirements are a big concern. Full blocks are a big concern. Speculation as to the consequences of these things (an in particular using those hypothetical concerns) to justify why we must do X is not helpful. No, full blocks are meant to be in bitcoin. opinion stated as fact We should do a bit of X,Y and Z. I think in doing these things iteratively, further opportunities will present themselves. Thats the reality of software development (at least in my experience). Sometimes you have to do a bit of suck it and see. It might not be optimal at that given point in time, but it can help drive development in a more optimal direction. The reality of "open" software development is that anybody is free to contribute, but it does not imply it will be implemented by the network's participants. Still, bitcoin unity relies on a consensus, not some various branding for all the braindeads spectrum a la cocacola zero, light and cherry. opinion stated as fact My biggest concern is that the only option I have to support bigger blocks is XT. I'd hate for everyone to jump to that because it was the only viable alternative. Supporting bigger blocks just for bigger blocks is childish and stands no ground in the technical debate. opinion stated as fact I am supporting scaling solutions that do not hamper the decentralization and hence the security of bitcoin's network.
opinion stated as fact I am supporting bitcoin as an immuable force from which a healthy monetary system will emerge.
opinion stated as fact To be clear, its the fact there is only one option that is the problem. In and of itself I don't think XT is necessarily a bad option, and I certainly don't subscribe to the belief that it would automatically result in all the bad things happening. Over time it could potentially facilitate those things, but I also believe that if that were the case then this can be addressed.
Unbelievable, talking stuff like "belief" "could" "believe" "things" all the way down to such pseudo conclusion. I have opinions I do not state them as facts. Yes, I have "faith". Without it what is the point in anything. There is no point bending bitcoin's rules just to fit couple USG payment processors and broken fiat intermediaries. opinion stated as fact To hell with the corporate leeches.
probably opinion stated as fact, but its hard to tell I think this is a common theme, and its not just you or your 'side'. There are plenty of big blockers that keep posting stuff that makes me cringe its just that they aren't rebutting my posts so there's no real reason to call them out. Now I am not saying I am perfect, but I certainly try to make sure that I recognise what is my opinion and what are facts. I think if more people did this then the conversation could be much more productive. My statement about XT being the only solution wasn't a conclusion, it was just one amongst several points. When you say things like "Supporting bigger blocks just for bigger blocks..." it implies that you have either not understood, or ignored what I wrote. I am in favour of big blocks for all of the reasons that I stated, and not just for their own sakes. I am troubled because the only option I have to 'support' big blocks is to run XT. They are related but independent points. If you want a 'conclusion' then you would be better focusing on this comment: "We should do a bit of X,Y and Z. I think in doing these things iteratively, further opportunities will present themselves. Thats the reality of software development (at least in my experience). Sometimes you have to do a bit of suck it and see. It might not be optimal at that given point in time, but it can help drive development in a more optimal direction." This comment is supposed to illustrate how software itself iterates, rather than to speak of the "open source" process. When a feature is developed algorithms are created. Those algorithms can sometimes trigger development - either the optimisation of existing algorithms, the refactoring of related code to take advantage of those new algorithms, or inspire different features based on the new algorithms. This is not an exhaustive list, but it illustrates the point I think. That sometimes it is not possible to see what will several steps ahead until some of the previous steps are implemented. To further clarify I am not saying that is the entirety of the development process, but it is one facet. The conclusions would be that I think bigger blocks allow for more time to to continue developing scaling solutions without compromising the viability of bitcoin in terms of transaction throughput. That I think that this will not lead to dangerous levels of centralisation overnight (I agree it may not be sustainable - but conversely nobody can actually say that it is not) by making it prohibitively expensive to run a node. I think that there is not any need to attempt to artificially create a fee market when we are still in the position of coinbase being a huge revenue stream. I think that it is preferable to let a fee market develop organically. However much you try and state that all of these opinions are wrong, you cannot categorically state that your counter opinions are any more factual. However strongly you might believe in them. Hal Finney had an opinion, and you posted it. He could be right. Satoshi had an opinion too - its in my sig, maybe he is right. gmaxwell posted about how he though 'coffee on chain' was far less of a problem than 'nothing on chain' - I'd agree. Using the blockchain for non bitcoin transfer seems much further away from "what is bitcoin" than actually recording bitcoin transfer. We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views. |
|
|
|
for completeness sake...   |
|
|
|
check my figures! there were so few entries it didn't seem worth working out out programmatically so I just figured it out by hand, so inevitably there could be some human error   |
|
|
|
Also for the record... three nodes... ~80 connections on each  |
|
|
|
Wrong, wrong and more wrong.
The 1MB limit was put in place in 2010, not 2008. Actual bitcoin network upload speed (the real bottleneck) measurements show upload bandwidth for nodes at edge of network is growing at closer to 17-25%. (This disregards data caps for total bandwidth available also).
Bitcoin also had a 250kb limit at the time, implemented as a soft-rule by miners rather than a hard protocol rule. If you take the current system with a 2010 client (and much less a circa 2010 computer) it will likely not keep up with the network (if you try, let me know in a month when you complete the initial block download...  ). The limits then were already set in a forward looking manner and we have been scrambling to keep up with the network as it's grown into them. get real. you can buy a 1TB harddrive for $50 today and store BIP101-enabled blockchain onto it for years to come. then pay $50 more for a 4TB drive to handle a few more years of growth. or are you still using the same computer you owned in 1999 with its 1.6GHz singlecore, 512MB ram, and 60GB HDD (all cutting edge)?
This is ignorant of the total costs of operating a reliable production grade system in a commercial environment... including the need to be nowhere near capacity at any time even when run on underspeced/io-starved/misconfigured mystery-meat hosting in order to make sure that nothing especially clever or difficult is required so that you can employ commonly available ham-sandwiches as devops. This may not be as true for businesses that really consider Bitcoin to be central to their business-- but, as a bitcoin-seriousness proxy, how many non-mining Bitcoin companies do you know of that mine and participate in the network consensus? (I know of only one, ahem; and it seems like in not to long the same may apply for running full nodes)... Ultimately if the system is only usable in a way that preserves its political and security properties by those who are those who are the "most serious" (and politically motivated) then it will not be a success as a decentralized system. It's not good enough to be accessible to some, to achieve decentralization it has to be broadly accessible. There are many factors standing in the way of that; including indifference and a lack of education but resource impacts absolutely play a part of it. You don't see people widely outsourcing their DHCP daemons, though they're incidental to their business. Why isn't a Bitcoin node as invisible as a DHCP server? Go show me a DHCP server that uses tens of gigs of storage, hundreds of gigs of transfer, gigabytes of ram, significant amounts of CPU, etc. and all these demands constantly growing. One of the reasons I think that XT has been as much of a flop as it has, so quickly, is that many of the people persuaded by the eloquent rants of misleading simplicity went and actually ran a Bitcoin node; and encountered the same costs and annoyances that users have been complaining about heavily since the soft limits were cranked... and lost their conviction. I know this is true for some, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were a more general pattern.(I also suspect that many, though probably not all, the people complaining about DOS attacks weren't just seeing the ordinary load that every other node sees; including the "attack like" traffic from people trying to trace transaction origins-- even I thought someone was attacking Core nodes and changed to identify as XT and saw no difference in traffic)... plus the whole, "unlimited blocks are great, so long as someone else is paying the cost", which doesn't actually work... For me this is the strongest argument for small blocks that I have read to date, and I agree with it. It is expensive to run a node. (I'd argue not prohibitively, but thats a matter of opinion). Despite this I still think we need bigger blocks, and in taking this road I think that the pain Gregory described above would increase. I think this is growing pain though and although its undesirable I don't think its symptomatic of terminal illness. I absolutely have faith that "development" has some big answers to this, and that protocol/software improvement will be the thing that addresses the challenges we currently face with infrastructure requirements. Essentially I think we can have it all, and that those that frame the debate as being mutually exclusive are too married to their position to see the big picture. Bandwidth requirements are a big concern. Full blocks are a big concern. Speculation as to the consequences of these things (an in particular using those hypothetical concerns) to justify why we must do X is not helpful. We should do a bit of X,Y and Z. I think in doing these things iteratively, further opportunities will present themselves. Thats the reality of software development (at least in my experience). Sometimes you have to do a bit of suck it and see. It might not be optimal at that given point in time, but it can help drive development in a more optimal direction. My biggest concern is that the only option I have to support bigger blocks is XT. I'd hate for everyone to jump to that because it was the only viable alternative. To be clear, its the fact there is only one option that is the problem. In and of itself I don't think XT is necessarily a bad option, and I certainly don't subscribe to the belief that it would automatically result in all the bad things happening. Over time it could potentially facilitate those things, but I also believe that if that were the case then this can be addressed. Yes, I have "faith". Without it what is the point in anything. |
|
|
|
|
542 Satoshis!?
A brother gotta be makin' real paper to draft those kinda currents!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
