Is Gavin still hiding in his basket?
Is MP still pumping your ass? |
|
|
|
What about some decent reasoning?
"Roadstress says retarded shit, therefore Roadstress is an idiot". Sounds like a decent syllogism to me. English is not my main language if that's your problem with me. Still not a single reason (besides bloatchain) of why we shouldn't fork. Just like everyone else that it's anti-fork. Simply saying "no no no" without bringing anything new to the discussion isn't constructive at all. Ok. Since you are out of arguments and you refuse to answer to the question of why shouldn't we increase the block size limit should we revert to calling names each other? See, I'm visualizing sidechains as a (frankly, near perfect) solution to give the masses (and their network effect) all of the power of Bitcoin and much more while not damaging it with pointless bloat which reduces the pool of potential infrastructure support. I am a big fan of the sidechains too, but do we know how much space in a block will the 2-way peg need? I don't remember seeing a reference to this. |
|
|
|
Ok, but my point is still valid. Satoshi never had a block size limit!
Didn't he add one at some point? The one you want removed? Dumbass. Oh good. Reverting to personal attacks just like the MP retard train. What about some decent reasoning? Or what about you answer me to this question: On to the subject. Why are you against the fork and against raising the block size limit?
Instead of throwing shit like everyone else maybe we can have a decent talk. What do you say? Let's give it some time and observation before fixing what is already working spectacularly well.
We gave it time for observation. The Lighthouse project is hindered by a 1MB block size limit so we already have a problem. Services will not be able to run smoothly on top of blockchain with a 1MB limit. It's that easy! |
|
|
|
If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)
Have you read all post from this thread? The "much disk" will not be needed! We have blockchain pruning. Well if the size of the block rise the size of blockchain database may rise or the upgrade is useless, bigger size more disk space and in my opinion full nodes are not so many. Regards Juan Ok you are unable to read what people post here. Let me spell it for you: B-L-O-C-K-C-H-A-I-N P-R-U-N-I-N-G + cheapening of $/TB Maybe now you get it! |
|
|
|
Nowhere did satoshi say to raise blocklimit ahead of demand 20-fold.
Hey MP guess what: Satoshi never had a block size limit! Now go and eat more shit please. I'm not MP you fuckin' idiot Ok, but my point is still valid. Satoshi never had a block size limit! |
|
|
|
Why are you against the fork and against raising the block size limit?
"Why are you against adding a fifth wheel to your car?". Because my car moves perfectly fine with four wheels. Firstly it's not your car to begin with. It's everyone's car and if we don't raise the block limit it will be a car limited only to the highest bidders. That's simply wrong! Nowhere did satoshi say to raise blocklimit ahead of demand 20-fold.
Hey MP guess what: Satoshi never had a block size limit! Now go and eat more shit please. |
|
|
|
If the Blocksize increase exponentially the numbers or nodes may drop in a significant way just because they require to much disk, actually the network increase but there are not so many full nodes (nodes sharing the blocks)
Have you read all post from this thread? The "much disk" will not be needed! We have blockchain pruning. |
|
|
|
This particular fork advocating eternal blockchain growth and never-full blocks should indeed be seen as an attack. Check my registration date.
No need to check your registration date. You can talk normally and you don't throw shit like MP sock-puppets account do. On to the subject. Why are you against the fork and against raising the block size limit? |
|
|
|
I don't see why people see this as an issue. Even Satoshi knew and accepted this would happen:
Cross-posting it here just so MP can eat more shit: Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all. From block 1 it was legal to have a 2MB, 20MB, even 33MB block. There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).
The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later. There was no voting, no significant discussion, and the commit wasn't made by Satoshi. It actually was combined with a bunch of other unrelated changes and not even well documented at the time. There is nothing which indicates this was a core design decision that Bitcoin would perpetually be limited to 1MB.
Of course people that have their own agenda like MP will chose to ignore or not reveal the true history of this 1MB limit. I think things are pretty much clear and done regarding this subject. Sathoshi never intended for a block size limit. It was introduced because we didn't know how to handle spam and it was the easier and the fastest way to limit it. But now after a period of time we can develop technical stuff to deal with the spam in other way than limiting the block size. Go Gavin fork! Suck it MP! |
|
|
|
lol. Microtransactions bloat and Dos attack, here we come. 2.8 GB each day potentially. wow didn't sync up for a week? Will take you a whole day to catch up. People downloading the chain first time will leave the computer running for a month later on  Your internet provider will be outraged and cancel your contract if you're a bitcoin user I think this whole story is pretty bizzarre The solution is called blockchain pruning and it already exist. Just needs a bit more developing and testing. Your argument isn't such a big problem and this was already discussed if you would have read the last pages of the thread. Unless you are just another MP shit eating sockpuppet. blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:
-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
Yes block all the accounts that are pro fork so you and your master MP can stuff a lot more shit in you. Name: Muuurrrrica!
Date Registered: December 07, 2014, 06:13:18 PM Name: homo homini lupus
Date Registered: December 07, 2014, 05:53:10 PM Name: Pecunia non olet
Date Registered: December 07, 2014, 05:55:09 PM WHAT A SURPRISE! All these accounts are against the fork and they are attacking everyone that is pro-fork. Surprisingly all the accounts were created in the same day and around the same hour. HEY MP GO EAT A BAG OF DICKS. Do not get fooled by these sock-puppets. It's MP jerking on his keyboard. |
|
|
|
Fuck sakes, if Satoshi was so smart why the hell didn't he add 20 MB by default? he would have saved us from this mess. Geeeeez.
Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all. From block 1 it was legal to have a 2MB, 20MB, even 33MB block. There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions). The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later. There was no voting, no significant discussion, and the commit wasn't made by Satoshi. It actually was combined with a bunch of other unrelated changes and not even well documented at the time. There is nothing which indicates this was a core design decision that Bitcoin would perpetually be limited to 1MB. Of course people that have their own agenda like MP will chose to ignore or not reveal the true history of this 1MB limit. I think things are pretty much clear and done regarding this subject. Sathoshi never intended for a block size limit. It was introduced because we didn't know how to handle spam and it was the easier and the fastest way to limit it. But now after a period of time we can develop technical stuff to deal with the spam in other way than limiting the block size. Go Gavin fork! Suck it MP! We need smarter solution. Side chains can solve this problem easy.
We already have it. Blockchain pruning. Just needs more development and testing. People anti-fork choose to ignore things that are real and that are helpful! |
|
|
|
..
not sure - theres no obvious reason for it to not push itself higher. Your start and max voltages are quite spread apart though, so it could take several hours to actually ramp up very slowly. It looks like your system uptime is only 1hr
try bumping your start voltage to 700mv - if it does down from there, its a sign of problem. if it stays there or barely rises, the system is likely very slow to adjust upward to nominal speed
OK, I'll try.. how much time it takes for the system to stabilize.. I never mined with ASICs before  It takes a bit of time to ramp up the speed. |
|
|
|
You made my day . However I think we need the hardfork, let see if all the bitcoiners will follow it or not. Of course! I am PRO raising the limits especially when there are no arguments besides the minor technical limits of a bloatchain which can be solved. I am also a hobbyist miner and I think that trying to impose higher fees with a 1MB block limit is simply retarted. Because Bitcoin may go to 10$ and we will be again in this position where the miners will barely afford to run miners. |
|
|
|
you are not interesting in any hardware you only want to defense Taras and TheRealSteve and this is main reason due to you are going off topic, If you are really interested about BitHashMiner then come on BitHashMiner website as buyer and ask questions about hardware, if you are not a buyer then why are you asking about hardware.
You must be really desperate for some coins if you still don't give up... SCAMMER ALERT! |
|
|
|
i don't see me downloading 2.8GB every day just to sync up - and i know almost nobody will do that, that's why gavincoin will be the loosing fork (that was the basic point of the thread)
HEY RETARD! YOU WILL NOT NEED TO DOWNLOAD 2.8 GB EVERY DAY JUST TO SYNC UP! IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? |
|
|
|
Hashpower is financed with inflation and marketcap. Basically the investors directly pay for hashpower. Price and hash is related.
High hashpower = high expenses
(raw hash isn't an argument, a single point/chain of failure isn't an argument)
Again a misleading post. The mining process hasn't reached a tipping point. There is still room for improvement regarding power consumption and density. The best miner available right now is doing 0.5W/GH, but there are talks about 0.1W/GH so we can fit at least 5x time more hashpower while needing the same money as today to run it 24/7. So please don't forget to eat your shit. Before and after each useless post that you make. |
|
|
|
You wanna know why I know the OP is trolling/an idiot?
It took us 6 years to hit a blockchain 30 GB in size.
Now OP is making claims that the blockchain will suddenly grow more than 30GB every two weeks if the 20m cap is implemented. (2.8GB/day).
I don't even wanna......
You can fit all 6 years of transactions on a $50 1TB hard drive, over thirty times lol... Nothing to worry about.
He is also claiming that the blocks will fill from the first day we hard fork (which will happen in a minimum of 6 months I guess). He is claiming a lot, but he fails to have valid points and he also fails to back his statements. He only throws and eats shit from his master MP. |
|
|
|
More simple, he posted on his blog. details here In summary, he believes bitcoin is something that only the wealthy should want/need to use and that it isn't meant to be for everyone. Hence why he sees no need for the change. I did post my view on MP's post here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=941331.msg10377700#msg10377700 and will re post it for visibility MP is a sensationalist and he likes drama and attention. In my view in business and in ecosystems there are no people, there are only ideas. Starting his article mentioning the person behind the idea is simply bad intended from the start. Right after that he starts praising MPEx which again has absolutely nothing related to the main idea and to the main subject of a bigger block size. After filling half of the article with useless nonsense about MPEx he reverts to a journalistic move in order to divert the attention from the subject which is to reveal something sensational and he chose to reveal that regular users will need 914TB of storage in order to pay for their coffee. I have already answered to this stupid and non-existing issue. We will develop a way of not needing that amount of storage for regular coffee buyers. Afterwards he starts pushing his view of the blockchain. For a decentralized thing people trying to limit things their way isn't so good. Gavin is only trying to not limit things and to have large open doors for everyone. Keeping a 1MB block limit is a bad intended and limiting move.In the end of the shit article MP closes with: If Bitcoin can't pay for its own security, it is best to find this out sooner rather than later. Bitcoin security will be insured by the services running on top of it and allowing services to run on top of Bitcoin by increasing the block size limit will definitely insure security no matter what. P.S. Sorry for the post spam. It's for better visibility. |
|
|
|
^^^
misinfo/disinfo
what a compelling counter argument to the facts I presented. bravo. He always does that. He only throws shit and eat shit. He has nothing else other than MP's dick in his butt. |
|
|
|
Why?
Because there are no users for the bloatcoin. People won't adopt it. They'll go for alts with smaller bloatchains.
This fucktard keeps pumping the bloatchain argument just like MP. So either you like to take it in the ass from MP or either you are an ultra retard. THE BLOATCHAIN ISN'T AN ISSUE. IT CAN BE SOLVED YOU DUMB FUCKTARD! What other reasons do you have for not forking? YOU DON'T! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
