Blocks will always be full. When we raise it to 2mb, blocks will quickly fill up. Etc. There is no ending in the block size being full. But that is good news, just means the network is being used, if they weren't full that would be a problem. If we want to have a big amount of free blocks, it would mean the blocksize would need to be too big to keep the network decentralized.
not quite. when the consensus is reached to go to say 2mb block buffer (acceptable limit of nodes) pools will then say the maximum they will ever make is 2mb.. but here is the kicker pools will dip thir toe in the water by making a block that is just a tad bit more than 1mb. say 1.001mb just to see the orphan risks and also to see if any bugs pop up.. such as the 500kb bug Sipa introduced in 2013.. if the orphan rate is not noticeable and no drama is caused, the pools will test a little more. this is the safe rational and natural path to do. but dont worry about bottlenecking. they wont take 8 years to get to the 2mb 'full' limit. the progress to 2mb will be sooner. eg if they stepped up by an extra 10kb per block. they could get to 2mb 'full' in just 3 days, safely evaluating the orphan bug risks or if actual transaction demand per block was only 1.2mb to get everyone in.. it can have blocks have the 2mb limit but blocks only with 1.2mb due to demand only needing 1.2mb and slowly grow as demand grows. its not a straight near vertical line like the op thinks.. its a curve |
|
|
|
ill keep this short  the red line is the OP's view of the future. the blue area is the reality of past present and future |
|
|
|
|
if there was a thing that required people to burn coins.. exchanges would instantly stop trading before the message circled around to everyone.
so instantly this stops 3letter agencies profiting.
the exchanges wont accept bitcoin deposits. much like the 2013 db drama sipa created with his bug.. exchanges just halted trading.
next part...why 'burn coins??.. seems like a fools errand
afterall how would you 'burn' coins.
if any public key could be bruteforced because all privkeys were available to a 3letter agency. then any 'bticoin eater' public key you sent them to could be bruteforced and funds taken out.
ultimately there is nothing you can do as revenge
at best. to mitigate yourself as a possible victim. you would not have your stash on a single key. that way it wont show up as you being on the richlist for you to be targetted so soon/if at all.
i just see no point in burning coins by sending them to a bitcoin eater address if the agency has a privkey for all known addresses containing funds
|
|
|
|
@franky1, are you referring to spam transactions? because I've seen fake transaction generators that I think are a plague to slow down the network, how can we stop them?
i was talking more about someone spending real funds repeatedly onchain(confirmed). every block. what your describing is a malicious party trying to DDos your node with random data. |
|
|
|
There are lots of innovative coins out there but most of the merchant apps etc only cater for bitcoin. When they start adding alts, we might see a solution where one alt makes it big.
so your saying bitcoins problem is that users are not using an altcoin... much like: a cars problem is that people are not using a train.. see the logic problem of your statement. if we want to strengthen bitcoin we dont suggest people should use some a different network thats not permissionless nor immutable, and where this other network allows coins to be refunded(csv) even after settlement confirmation simply because they have not matured(cltv) for the weeks maturity |
|
|
|
-snip-
yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point.
but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again.
I was thinking about something else entirely by the word 'commit', not just creating a pull proposal. Anyone can write changes and submit a pull, like he did. Revoking someone's 'commit access', as it preventing him from creating a pull request is an absurd request. He does not have 'push access' is what I was aiming at. but those 'pushing' are in the same camp, they are his colleagues. infact he is Sipa's boss.. which was the other point rawdog was highlighting afterwards that gmaxwell can still control things. afterall adam back is also pulling the strings even while pretending he does not pull or push.. |
|
|
|
So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco.
in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month Actually, no. He does not have commit access. These are just commits that were written by him. You should click on it and then the number found here:  Merged by sipa. commits and merges are 2 different things. but Rawdog said revoke maxwells commit access.. not merge access.. commit. you replied that he already lost his commit access.. again not merge.. commit. i replied to show he does still have commit access.. not merge.. commit. so dont twist it like it was always about merge... when it clearly said commit by rawdog, YOU, twice.. and me. yea he doesnt have merge status. thats something else.. dont divert the point. but now you know he has commit access and always had it.. rawdogs point about taking maxwells commit access still has relevance again. |
|
|
|
So it was restored sometime since it was revoked? Okay my bad. I haven't noticed it considering the amount being merged by Laan, Sipa and Marco. in the last year the only month he did not 'commit' was march.. he must of taken a vacation that month |
|
|
|
|
in 2009-2013 people used sourceforge and then github to openly submit proposals.
this has then been sidelined in 2013+ requiring submitting a proposal to a mailing list to have it vetted first.
then a new layer was added where it needed to be discussed in IRC or the forum before being worthy of catching peoples eye on the mailing list.
its no longer open communication but a one way street with regular checkpoints and guards
|
|
|
|
allow things like: Malleability Fix or Linear scaling of sighash ops.
malleability fix.. LN does not need it. its a dual signing process. if the TX is malleated. it doesnt get signed. if someone wants to malleate a second tx. they cant as they need the other persons signature for the second tx too, because the data has changed. and double spending is still an issue because blockstream introduced RBF and CPFP to cause double spends. also you cannot even confidently trust a confirm tx of funds belong to you if the tx has a CLTV+CSV in it. you have to wait for maturity before declaring 100% immutable linear scaling.. easy fix dont let a tx have 20,000-80,000 sigops. if you think linear helps LN work better. you are wrong. an LN is only a 2in 2out 2 signature tx. thus its sigops is not going to cause seconds/minutes of processing. it remains milliseconds. again solution to linear is reduce the tx sigops limit.. which also reduces the spam of people trying to make 1mb tx's funnily blockstream want to allow large transactions. although there is no reason for it as for Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain,
it can actually. please wash away the "1gb blocks by tonight" nonsense you have read somewhere the mindset of 'Bitcoin will not scale to a world finance system onchain' rhetoric is not original, nor factual.. and go with your other mindset about 10-20year's natural growth you mentioned last year. bitcoin wont be and rationally shouldnt be the 'one world currency' or the worlds only financial system.. as that would get corrupted.. especially if blockstream becomes the IMF. removing diversity and open choice instead take a rational 5% populous.. meaning bitcoin ranked in the top 5 'nations' of the world. then you will see over a couple decades it is easy and manageable. as for why i checked your post history. its more about understanding am i talking to an empty troll thats just spamming devotion of blockstream in hopes of some recognition and commission from them.. or someone that actually knows a thing or two |
|
|
|
reasons bitcoin is not ready for mainstream 1. public keys are worse then remembering a car number plate or someones email address, even QR codes are not 100% the solution 2. decimal values, which needs you to look on another service/site to find your local currencies 'rate' 3. tx fee is more than an hours labour in a dozen developing countries (the same countries that could need bitcoin much.. but are priced out of using) 4. the code is not preventing spam and is left for 'economics' to sort. 5. the 'economics' of avoiding spam actually hurts genuine ethical users more than spammers. 6. the solution to spam is to get everyone locked into permissioned contracts, which funnily spammers will avoid as their intention is not contracted payments, but to spam. until bitcoin is as straight forward to just buy something by simply swiping an NFC chip. thus not needing an old granny to have a brain bleed trying to fumble around.. .. bitcoin is not ready until devs stop pretending we are all on dialup 56k internet, and actually stop halting mainnet progress.. bitcoin is not ready |
|
|
|
I think it's time to replace the banking system by bitcoin even though it is a difficult thing but it would probably be better  blockstream are helping the banks and governments make a new system. its called hyperledger. its not going to be a open platform for users to be free from bankers control. its going to be more control given to bankers and government. yes medical records, bank records, tax record, driving licence, child support, passports will all be relationally linked to each other bitcoin is being held back due to it. https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members - general members - blockstream blockstream are using bitcoin as the sandbox/testbed for hyperledger. slowly centralizing bitcoin and holding it back while then expanding hyperledger so that bitcoin cant compete |
|
|
|
|
here is where your letting your friend shoot you in the foot.
you have a 30MBit/s upload. (3.75mbyte/s = 2.25gbyte/10minutes)
even you know bitcoin can run on a raspberry pi
and even now there is a raspberry Pi3. and bitcoin has had some efficiency gains since you done your tests last year(5x due to libsecp256k1)
so running on a Raspberry Pi3 is about 20x faster today compared to the tests you done last year.
but instead of that rational thought. you let people tell you 2mb is bad and dynamic blocks are bad and baseblock needs to halt at 1mb.
knowing you can send 2.2gb of data every 10 minutes. you want to ignore that 2.2gbyte figure your able to cope with (37.5mb with 60 connections)
and proclaim 2mb with safe incremental growth based on community node agreement is bad.
simply because someone said so. but your own numbers say the opposite than your friends are telling you.
you then want to proclaim that closing off doors to diversity of 71different implementations should be an option and only connect to one 'brand'
do you even hear yourself advocating for centralization, for no reason.
here is a kicker.. core want 4mb weight. while keeping the 1mb base not for 'data restriction' but for transaction utility restriction
so if you ever argue that non core are 'bigblockers' look at cores 4mb weight. look at non cores 2mb request.
2 or 4 which is 'bigblocker'. simply maths, simple observation. 2 or 4 which is bigger.
oh and please dont throw out the standard script reply your friends shout. "1gb blocks by midnight doomsday"
we both know the rational consensus of 2016-2017 is 2mb and then natural node consensus accepting growth there after
|
|
|
|
Can anyone from BTCC explain why the Chinese government simply do not ban Bitcoin? What possible purpose does it serve to allow exchanges and miners to continue doing business in China?
Easy, Bitcoin is a scarce commodity like gold, asset not commodity gold has multiple markets. dont confuse which market gold sits on when comparing it to bitcoin. commodities are for raw produce made to make other products. EG wheat commodity ->bread EG crude oil commodity->plastic, car fuel EG gold ->circuits, jewellry gold sits on a commodity market - circuits/jewellery - industrial use gold sits on a asset market - investments - financial reserves use dont talk about gold in connection to the industrial use market. as thats a whole different ballgame talk about gold in connection to the financial market. as it still has the same 'scarce' argument your making. but atleast is better comparison to bitcoin |
|
|
|
is not retard like North Korea, I heard that in North Korea, people can't use mobile phone
google Koryolink, oh look north korea have a telecommunications company. and its not a blackmarket under the table company either its actually a public service |
|
|
|
The truth is in some hours there will be a simple majority of over 50% running a segwit node and adoption not stalling. In a month or two it will be 60 - 70%.
i got intrigued by your post history.. hmm monero fanboy. i now see why you are devoted to gmaxwell and not even trying to research beyond gmaxwells centralist mindset you dont care about bitcoins growth, your hoping for some monero riches. let me guess you then want to cash out with some fiat riches. goodluck with that though. |
|
|
|
You are free to belive whatever you want, that doesnt make it real.
Better take the tiny risk that your conspiracy is real, then hand over bitcoin to a bunch of incompetent noob devs.
you are free to stick head in the sand and only catch a breath to see your friend with the gun warning you of gunfire while he takes aim. how about do some research and read something. learn. have an open mind and see beyond the small box you want to put yourself in |
|
|
|
Sorry I dont talk to conspiracists, makes no sense.
blockstream $90m is not a free gift, its an investment that needs returns blockstream are part of the bankers making their closed fiat2.0 - https://www.hyperledger.org/about/memberscant make it up when its true. also you mentioned nodewitness 1 /Satoshi:0.13.1/ 1615 (28.87%) 2 /Satoshi:0.13.2/ 997 (17.82%) main imps total = 46.69% satoshi:0.13.99 / 119 (2.12%) BTCC:0.13.1/ 56 (1%) - bob lee's managed sybil distribution knots:0.13.2/ 19 (0.34%) - luke jr knots:0.13.1/ 7 (0.12%) - luke jr and out of that ~50% not all of them are explicitly voting for it. they are implicitly voting for it just by staying upto date. some are running it to test/examine and bugfind too. so in context there is no 'majority' or even a marginal majority explicitly in favour of it. hense why high majority is required. |
|
|
|
Well with my limited knowledge, I think SegWit is a good thing, I've upgraded my node to 0.13.2, and I block classic and unlimited nodes. Do I need to do anything else?
Hi, good one ! I want to block classic and unlimited nodes on my node aswell, how do i do that ? Segwit node apdotion ( Flag "NODE_WITNESS") just crossed 50%, the BU-fanboy-team is very delusional, claiming "people dont want it blablaba". LOL funny you want to create an altcoin by blocking anything not blockstream. thats real funny blockstream fanboys wanting to centralise by not being diverse open network, and instead close themselves off into a small box and live in cabin fever of only being fed by one master at the door. real funny thats about as rational as letting your best friend shoot your foot because you best friend tells you someone else might shoot your foot. but its your friend that is the only one with a gun... so you let him.. infact you try to get them to teach you how to shoot yourself in your own foot |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
