God punishes those who do bad things to other people and God rewards those who do good things for other people!
That is simply wrong. You have weird(human) expectations from God. Do you think that when God gave people their free will didn't thought that people will do bad things to other people? Do you think he loves those one less than the "good" ones just because you do it the same or because you want it so? |
|
|
|
Here's something which may cheer you guys up. I created a thread to have a 1 BTC bet with RoadStress. Here's the initial post from that thread: Praising SP-Tech, maybe, but talking rubbish no. Since you refuse to show some examples I am sure that you, as an AM shareholder, have a different way of digesting the reality and the facts when presented to you and that's why you see it as talking rubbish. Until you will present some evidence of talking rubbish your statements are worthless for me.
Put your bitcoin where your mouth is then. Let's have a 1 BTC bet. If I can provide a quote of you talking rubbish about AM in the AM shareholders thread I win and you owe me 1 BTC. If I can't provide such a quote, you win and I owe you 1 BTC. Edit: For the purpose of the bet, talking rubbish is defined as trolling, telling lies, spreading rumours, presenting opinion as facts. His last post in this thread may have just cost him 1 BTC and if he refuses to pay out then that's a valid reason for a scam accusation and negative feedback.  This is our PM discussion: And you seem like the few who will not accept the fact that AM is dead.
I'll take that 1 BTC now, thanks. Are you going to honour this bet or do I need to raise a scam accusation against you and leave negative feedback?
Raise a scam accusation against me and leave me negative feedback. |
|
|
|
And you seem like the few who will not accept the fact that AM is dead.
I'll take that 1 BTC now, thanks. Are you going to honour this bet or do I need to raise a scam accusation against you and leave negative feedback?
Raise a scam accusation against me and leave me negative feedback. |
|
|
|
Raising the block limit isn't fixing something that's broken.
So it's essentially making an altcoin. So when the block limit changed from none(or 32MB) to 1MB wasn't the equivalent of making an altcoin, but changing from 1MB to 20MB+ is the equivalent of making an altcoin? How come? I don't understand the difference between pre-1MB and post-1MB block limit. Please explain. How does that substiate the claim that Bitcoin won't be able to support building on top of it?
Be specific. If you claim that the current max tps rate is insufficient for X, you must at the very least provide an estimate for the tps required by X, and some relevant points about why X is important to Bitcoin, on one hand, and your reasoning behind the target tps rate for X. I admit that we(I) don't know how much space in a block will the Sicechains (or any other type of layer) need, but since we agree that regular users (coffee users) will not use the blockchain to purchase coffee then we have to agree that the transactions that will take place on the blockchain will be complex transactions which need more space than a regular transaction. A 15-of-15 P2SH transaction needs 1,481 bytes per script round trip. How do you know that there will not be transactions which will need 10k bytes? Or 100k bytes? How would you feel when you won't be able to do any transactions with your bitcoins unless you enter a fee auction?
As being a part of a sane market. What type of "market"? Maybe a financial one because that's not how markets work when it comes to technology. Internet is not working that way. Cell phone service providers aren't working that way. Show me an example because I think we have a different understanding of what Bitcoin really is. |
|
|
|
traincarswreck you are really pushing it for an ignore.
I am an extremely talented poker player, This is the only thing that I read from your long post. Please share with us the stakes that you are playing and your winrate and the number of the hands that have that winrate. (...) and tackling it now instead of waiting for it to break (...)
Could you please describe this BTC apocalypse? It sounds like if we reach the block limit we're automatically screwed which I guess is false. How would you feel when you won't be able to do any transactions with your bitcoins unless you enter a fee auction? |
|
|
|
You seem like the only one who can't grow up and end your crusade against AM.
Why can't you just admit that SP-tech, Bitmain, and Asicminer are the best/most trustworthy hardware manufacturers? Why must it be SPtech or nothing with you? (rhetorical question, I know you're getting paid handsomely to pimp SP-tech gear)
Yes, AM is extremely lacking in terms of customer support, and they are desperately in need of a solution for share transfers, but they've scammed absolutely no one in the several years they've been in business.
And you seem like the few who will not accept the fact that AM is dead. You contradict yourself in the above post. AM can't be the best/most trustworthy hardware when they are lacking in terms of customer support. It doesn't have to be SPTech or nothing with me. It has to be a manufacturer that offers a good service overall. I defended KnC in their Jupiter launch days because they deserved it and I bashed them when they deserved it. I was a big fan of Bitfury also in their early days, but they have disappointed me with their strategy of selling overpriced miners to regular customers while offering heavy discounted sales towards their big customers. I know that they are a business, but they pissed on their few regular customers. Regarding BITMAIN I don't agree with their policy of selling used miners from their farms to customers. You are against me because companies can't treat their customers treated right. Ok. |
|
|
|
But I agree with Davout that say you don't fix something not broken (I would just prefer to fix it when orange light turns on)
Raising the block limit isn't fixing something that's broken. It's just making the Bitcoin network be able to run at its full potential (or at least run at a higher potential than now). traincarswreck you are really pushing it for an ignore. it can't scale to additional layers built on top of it
There is absolutely no substance to this claim. You can find the substance below. The reason why you choose to ignore them is only personal choice I guess because for me it is substance: Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput: 2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually
Total # Transactions per Transaction
direct users user annually Frequency
<8,000 8760 Once an hour
178,000 365 Once a day
500,000 128 A few (2.4) times a week
1,200,000 52 Once a week
2,600,000 24 Twice a month
5,300,000 12 Once a month
16,000,000 4 Once a quarter
64,000,000 1 Once a year
200,000,000 0.3 Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000 0.06 Less than once a decade
As such, the blockchain can never support All The Transactions |
|
|
|
So we (network consensus) should wait until we have full 1MB blocks until we start considering increasing the block size?
Yes. If that ever proves problematic that is. Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.
I have no problem with Bitcoin. Do you? Well I thought that at this point it's obvious that the Bitcoin network can't scale to anything. It can't scale to 1M users making lots of transactions per month and it can't scale to additional layers built on top of it. You don't see this as a problem? If yes what's the reason behind that because I really don't see it. Why should people start using Bitcoin if they will not be able to use it once we reach a certain number of users? Why should developers develop stuff if it will not be usable after a certain point? I would really like to understand this. |
|
|
|
Ignoring the fact that you haven't replied to my question please tell me why isn't the right time now?
Because there is currently no problem. So we (network consensus) should wait until we have full 1MB blocks until we start considering increasing the block size? Or when do you consider it's the best time to approach this issue? |
|
|
|
It's the only thing that I'm advocating for.
Well then I suggest advocating it when the time is right. Ignoring the fact that you haven't replied to my question please tell me why isn't the right time now? Yes I believe I have shown in extensive detail that the thesis of ideal money is that bitcoin is to be more like gold than a coffee payment system. Nobody is reading your long and out of scope posts  This is not a discussion about bitcoin being this or that. It's a discussion if we need a bigger block size limit or not. Everything else should revolve around this. The coffee payment system was just an argument to show that we need a bigger block size. We can trash it and we can agree that the blobkchain shouldn't be used to pay for coffee if that's what you want, but the issue remains. We still need a bigger block size limit no matter what! How do you think the upper layers would work? Do you really think that the upper layers will be fine with a 1MB limit? |
|
|
|
Ideal Money means money that is pegged to a perfect standard. I suspect me and you are in total agreement, or perhaps not, but what seems clear to me is we are about to make the concnesus that bitcoin should be a moderately tansactable asset, and that all of the high frequency transactions will be "bitcoin 2.0", such as the "universal poker coin" that is clearly going to come about and is so much needed for the igaming industry. They will be transactions that are on a "higher protocol" (or wherever you describe it) that Adam Smith refers to the creation of "live stock" in which gold cannot be, but gold serves as the highway for. (and btw, I am the only one here so well read on the lecture topic Ideal Money, and I do suggest the lecture talks about this very dialogue and decision we face at this very moment) Too bad that you spent so much time with Ideal Money but you haven't read or haven't understood what's JGarzik is saying. Let me highlight the important part for you: Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design. Of course that you can disagree, but it doesn't mean it transforms to reality only because you want it so. I said a few pages ago that everyone should be able to use the blockchain
Yeah, and that's retarded. And having a blockchain that is available only to the highest bidders isn't retarded? I was trying to agree on the fact that we need bigger block limits. Do you agree with what JGarzik posted on the Mailing List? If yes then we both agree that we need a bigger block limit which is fine with me. It's the only thing that I'm advocating for. |
|
|
|
No I had to get out, a couple large points, everyone agrees with you, but what we need to understand, is I am the most well read on these related subjects, and their connections are incredibly difficult to present. However, I would rather appreciate more dialog and discussion from others....
They are NOT related subject. You are clearly NOT aware of this: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33405247/ which again I fully support. Read it and if afterwards you only see the Bitcoin network as Ideal Money then you are clearly on a wrong path. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
So? Everything on the same ledger? Herp.
I know that I said a few pages ago that everyone should be able to use the blockchain even coffee guys, but I am aware that even a 20MB block limit or even higher will not be enough for a global usage of the bitcoin network. But that still means that we need to raise the block limit. Do we agree on that? |
|
|
|
|
Ok at this point traincarswreck is just mumbling stuff to himself either he is trying to bury the relevant stuff behind his long and not on subject posts. Does anyone else agrees with me?
|
|
|
|
SD Boot fixed it for me.
As i understand the SD card must remain inside the rig forever..?
Told you so |
|
|
|
I didn't cancelled it, my conclusion is that it would be nice that my project don't rely on miner including my project's transactions in blocks to feed bitcoin blockchain, but I should make my own blockchain for my own purpose. You don't have to put everything on bitcoin blockchain, not everything need proof of work, and not all chains are important as bitcoin blockchain. That's why the Sidechains will be perfect for you. We still have time and must find a better fix than the current one IMO What's the problem with this fix? The raise is too big? Or raising the block limit is wrong? Gold is kind of base money, like bitcoin, it holds value, but isn't transacted so often. For me, best analogy to bitcoin is gold. What's more precious/valuable? The actual bandwidth used on internet or what's actually going on on internet? The bandwidth is useful indeed because without it the internet would not be possible, but how is that bandwidth used is what brings more value overall. |
|
|
|
It may be a philosophical issue. If this is one of those NetNeutrality idiots that want to prevent me from investing in faster internet connection for myself because "fairness".
When you add these view points together you get the pernicious move from Bitcoin -> totalitarian coin.
Uncontrolled exponentially bigger blocks + government constrained network speeds and new regulatory authority over all internet uses (where you are NOT allowed to put your bitcoin node in a fast lane because it wouldn't be "fair" to the Farmville players).
Instead of replying to my last post you are mumbling something about "uncontrolled exponentially bigger blocks" while Gavin's post is all about a controlled growth of the blocks. You lack reading comprehension or you are just bad intended with this small change of subject. No need to continue a discussion with your attitude. |
|
|
|
Dr. Nash knows waaaaayyyyy more about money than Sataoshi
According to whom? Forget about Nash. traincarswreck wants bitcoin to be a currency! Nothing else. Why? Limited vision. Easy game! |
|
|
|
You are using rhetoric debate tricks, so I will point out a few of those.
1) Please do not speak for Satoshi.
2) Please do not speak for others.
3) I've written a lot of things in the past that you do not pay attention to also, don't pretend that I should have to read everything you have ever written to ask a few simple questions.
We agree on most things, the internet has changed, Bitcoin has changed, movie compression has changed. All of that is orthogonal to this particular change, and as to how it ought to change. There we disagree. Fine. I will not speak for Satoshi and I will only speak for me as long as you do the same. I also think that the block size will increase, and I look forward to it. I do think it ought to be done with care and intelligence. I do not think we should guess about it. I do not think new arbitrary limits should be created by adding an exponential dimension, even if they are "better" than the current ones, without also taking the time we have to do it right. I do not think "we need to allow stuff to happen". If you call http://gavintech.blogspot.ro/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html guessing then I guess we are done discussing stuff. IF we break bitcoin for some purposes in order to fix it for other purposes, it is important to be very honest about that. To some folks this is the "screw-TOR-lets-mass-adopt" hard fork. We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption today, but a larger block size removes an impediment to getting there. Is it worth making it impossible to mine over TOR? Maybe. Maybe not. Some may exit. There are less that use TOR than those that don't, so if we are majority magnets, we drop TOR. I do not favor a rule by the majority. I will only speak for me as long as you do the same so I will ignore this "we" comment. It also allows for increased network cost or decreases centralization:
Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization How much mining have you done or are you doing right now to speak about network costs? So these are two attack threat vectors opened up by your "We just need to allow stuff to happen." mentality.
Bitcoin is what it is, not because of what it allows, but because of what it does NOT allow.
I do not favor a rule by the majority. You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority. It means agreement. But before this 1MB limit we had no limit. Why should I agree that this is the way it should be instead of the other way? Here we disagree. You view Bitcoin as something that is supposed to limit. I don't. There can't be a middle way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
