CoinTerra is in bankruptcy so they aren't expecting anything. Even if they were expecting that is a very bad efficiency in order to worth the 16nm mask. 0.2W/GH can be easily achieved with a 28nm chip.

I am sorry for your loss. Condolences.

Since you refuse to answer on the other topic I will ask here:

How long do we gather and analyze data after we get full 1MB blocks? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years? How do we decide that we had enough data to analyze the issue?

Why do you revive this useless thread where nobody bothered to reply to you instead of discussing the issues on the 2 thread that are more active than this thread?

This is the reason why I call you a retard clown. You haven't bothered to answer to my questions that I have addressed to you here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10400874#msg10400874 but you revive this useless thread to try to impose your points. GOOD WORK! You brought A LOT of value to the subject!


Because some people are idiots or have their own agenda. It's that easy.

Well I'm not aware of LaudaM history, but from the start you are comparing apples to oranges. Having a signature that advertises for something can't be compared to the direct endorsement and with all the lies and all the misinformation that Icetard put up in the HashFail thread. Even now after the company is bankrupt he is still defending HashFail stating that it was just a failed business when it was a plain scam all along.


So because you only see in Bitcoin just only one application that is money we should all agree to that?


I view this as paranoia. While you and tvbcof are using lots of services outside of TOR you don't want to use Bitcoin outside of TOR. Why don't you try to impose TOR on all websites if we are at this subject? Only limit only to Bitcoin? Why should the network comply with your view and fears? Why don't you let the network decide this as it should happen?


Now you are just like one of those Protestants that is taking the bible ad-literam. Here is my view on what satoshi said: Sidechains! Part of the proof-of-work stuff will move to sidechains and kaboom! You will not have every proof-of-work quorum piled into one system.


A 1TB HDD is ~$50. That's your problem? Remember it's your problem, not the networks problem. The true network problem is a bottleneck which will be caused by the 1MB limit.


Pruning!


Are you a miner to know how the miners will act and what are their needs? I am a miner and I find a block reward halfing to be more than enough reward for me to keep mining. At 12.5BTC/block I don't care about the fees.


How did you got to the more than 25 BTC reward in fees for a 1MB limit? Would you show me the math behind it or it's just a number pulled out of your ass?


So going from 0.1BTC to 0BTC is the real problem for the security? What are you smoking?

Do you know when the block reward will be like 3 BTC? Serious question.


How much is far? 5 years? 10 years?


The exchange rate doesn't matter. It's the technology that does!


You like using fancy words like "mass adoption" I see.

If we get mass adoption with an 1MB block limit then we will have this problem:


Do you really think that "mass adoption" will help with anything if the network will be limited to a couple million users making less than one transaction per month?

"Money is only the first application" It's not the ONLY application! Why do you keep insisting on the money aspect?

Yes get rid of me and leave the Icetard clown to support scamming companies!


This is not a discussion about the concept of "ideal money". This is a discussion about if we need to increase the block size limit or not. As our Bitcoin Guru Andreas says "Money is only the first application". (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HtP2SOr0isk#t=91) Bitcoin can do much more than money so you are missing the whole point from the start. Just like the Icetard clown.

Raising to 20MB blocks will not make every single block exactly 20MB in size. Blocks can go up to 20MB if there are enough transactions.


Hey IceClown nice way of dodging and ignoring my questions!

Bitcoin is the most precious thing ever invented, not the blockchain real estate you dumbfuck! Diluting the value of the blockchain real estate will only make Bitcoin be usable by everyone instead of limiting it to the highest bidder. You clearly are on the wrong path of advocating crypto and only having a signature doesn't help at all in your advocating mission.

Hello Icetard! I only attack a couple of people that I consider that they deserve this kind of treatment. If you would've paid any attention to this thread you would've seen that for yourself. I even tried to have a decent talk with one of MPs sock puppet account and after realizing that he only likes to throw shit I switched to directly attacking him because that's how scumbags should be treated. You are included in that category too because of your big campaing of supporting HashFail which has scammed tons of customers and for your useless posts where you attack instead of bringing anything good to the discussion.

Everyone is free to check your posts in the HashFail thread to see that you deserve to be treated this way.

The fact that you expect me to accuse Thermos (sic) of being a master scammer is yet another proof that you are a retard clown. It's like accusing DPR of being a drug lord while he was only providing a medium for people to get their stuff safely.


So your argument is that Bitcoin's net-worth will increase just because it was the 1st mover? Are you that idiot? By this logic Archie should be the top search engine, and not Google.

As for "digital reserve currency advantages and status" please explain why or how will this guarantee Bitcoin's net-worth increase because I fail to see the points. I assume that these 2 attributes do not restrict only to Bitcoin so your point is kinda invalid. (unless it's something only specific to Bitcoin which I haven't understood)


We are not relying on the future pruning mechanins when we make the fork for the 20MB blocks because it will not be an issue at start and there is enough time to develop it. Blocks will not start to fill as soon as we raise the limit so we are find for a certain period of time.


How long do we gather and analyze data after we get full 1MB blocks? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year? 5 years? How do we decide that we had enough data to analyze the issue?

Also you ignore the fact that the moment when we start to analyze how the ecosystem reacts/adapts it's also the moment when we all start to use a bottle-necked network and it will be like this for the whole period of our analysis be it 1 month or 1 year. This will severely hinder development and new projects and services because they will have to take into consideration the block availability and the higher and higher fees that will have to be paid. This is the worst thing that can happen to the growth of the Bitcoin ecosystem.


Don't worry. The community will decide whether you like the outcome or not.

Why TOR? Who says that TOR is mandatory? You?

It's not just wanting bigger blocks. There is a reason behind that. The bigger blocks are needed if we want a bigger bitcoin net-worth overall. That brings a lot of good things to the ecosystem in form of development and innovation.

What the network can support is subject to technological development and innovation. This is not a mechanical issue where you try to fit a square into a round hole. While technology also has its limitations, there is a lot of room for improving it. Just a few years ago we were all watching low quality youtube clips, while now we can watch 1080p videos. Playing heavy 3d graphics games on our smartphones is another example of technology that is developing and that hasn't hit its cap.

Also since I'm also a hobbyist miner please give me full 10MB blocks right now and I will invest part of my earnings in setting up full nodes with tons of HDD space available

Not raising the block limit because of a technical reason which can be solved is simply wrong in my view.

So raising the limit slowly will stop the blockchain spammers? That makes no sense. If they can spam at 2MB then they can spam at 1MB and at 20MB. We can find measures to live with the spam, but limiting the block size at 1MB isn't a valid solution for this.

Funny!

Most of your posts are in the HashFast thread and they are supporting a company that has scammed tons of customers. You supported a company that was only able to push out one single batch of miners while making all pre-order money vanish. They secured the bitcoin netwowk like nobody else. Even BFL has secured the network better than the HashFail scammer company.


Just another example of an anti-fork cheerleader preaching the altcoins. PLEASE move to an altcoin and spare the Bitcoin ecosystem of your shit.


If we go x20 in one time it will not make the used space 20x bigger instantaneously. If we had a 20MB limit right now it wouldn't matter because blocks will be filled by the same amount.



Lots of nice info. Thanks. Sucks to be in the most free and democratic country in the world where the government is spending so much money and time to protect from its own citizens instead of providing them a better lifer overall.

So you are against rasing the block limits because of the space problem and you don't agree with the blockchain pruning solution? Ok. That makes a lot of sense.

On the Hardware section we call him Icetard or many different names. He is a clown that imagines about himself as an advocate of crypto. It appears that the poll that he just created is against him already which is quite funny  And the thread that he just created speaks about says a lot about him and about the majority of the anti-fork team.

Pure gold from someone who is an advocate of crypto. You are doing one terrible job.

If we agree that sometimes in the future we will raise the limit then why not do it now?
Widespread support already exists. You only choose to ignore it.
If we agree that sometimes in the future we will raise the limit to 10MB then why not do it now?
It is not mandatory to implement it right away when raising the block limit because if we didn't needed it 1 day before then we don't need it today.
So now it is mandatory that Bitcoin should be accessed through TOR? Why? Because you want it so?

Advocate failure!

Again someone that is against raising the block size limit who wants to impose his views. So you want a distribution on wealth like a pie chart, but you also want the market and the ecosystem to deal with the problems. It can't be both ways. It's either your way or the market's way.


Go away MP!


LIES! The only thing that you advocate for is failed business like HashFast. Most of your post are praising and defending a failed (scammer in my view) company that managed to eat ~50M$ while leaving most of its customers with nothing.

I know that you will say otherwise, but please prove it that you are an advocate of crypto in general. Otherwise you just eat shit just like Mircea Popescu and his sock puppets accounts.


This should be good news for everyone. I think this will be the first time where we will see how a decentralized consensus network works at stress times. Gavin may go ahead, but the network will decide. It's not called Beta for nothing! Grow up and take it like a man instead of crying like a baby. And this is for all that are against the fork. You don't like the new fork then stay on your old fork. The network will decide! Not you, not me and neither Gavin.


Now you understand why they can't grasp the reasons for a higher block limit? They simply can't understand that a network that has a higher net-worth is much more valuable to have and will pay higher fees than a network with a lower net-worth.

What I find pretty amusing is that all the people that are against the fork want to limit something or someone with their ideas, while Gavin's idea only opens a door.

Go to Settings tab. What limit do you have for "Restart the miner if it mines below X speed" (or something like that). If your limit is 3000GH and the miner starts hashing at 2500GH then it will always restart. Try to lower that limit to a speed that is below your starting speed.

Does anyone know how much space in a block will the 2-way peg need?

There IS a problem. Lighthouse project is hindered by the 1MB block size. The fact that you and everyone else is ignoring it will not make it go away.

And this is just one project. We could have additional projects/services that will be hindered by the small block size limit.