The question Gavin and Hearn cannot answer

[JackH]

Gavin and Hearns proposal for increasing the blocksize to 20MB is the ultimate way to destroy Bitcoin. For anyone that has the need to follow a "leader" and refuses to understand what the outcome of increasing the blocksize is, please read on.

Increasing the blocksize to 20MB does not solve anything in the long term. Neither Gavin nor Hearn can answer what they will do if the blocksize needs to be raised beyond 20MB at a later stage. Right now, what we are getting is a lazy fix, when we dont even need it.

Gavin has been screaming about the blocksize is reaching is maxiumum and that we need to increase the size of the blocks. Why we need to raise it TWENTY FOLD is not something Gavin can answer. Neither can he answer what he will do when 20MB becomes to little again. Raising it to 200MB?

Another huge problem about raising the block size is that the current amount of nodes we are having will start dropping even faster. People have been pointing out how we have lost nodes in the recently. Everyone agrees that this is because the blocksize is becoming too large. Now we are voting to increase the blocksize 20 times more?

[1714773476]

1714773476

[1714773476]

1714773476

[1714773476]

1714773476

[HostFat]

Do you know about pruning?

[balu2]

#Vertcoin
#Primecoin
#Monero
#Dash
#Litecoin

[LiteCoinGuy]

another thread   ... omg

did you know that there was no blocksize limit some years ago?


read gavins blog:

http://gavinandresen.ninja/bigger-blocks-another-way

[JackH]

Yes I know that Satoshi did not put a limit on blocks, I was there back then. But you have to understand that back then things were much different. It was not until the MtGox fiasco where Bitcoin crashed from 30USD to 2USD when we all realized Bitcoin was finally getting traction. Before that it was a theoretical project between few people, and did not need these scaling issues to be considered.

We are here now, today, with a problem, and increasing the blocksize 20 TIMES over WILL kill nodes and WILL irrevocably destroy Bitcoin.

[LiteCoinGuy]

20 blocks will not kill bitcoin, that is pure FUD - sorry.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized

[franky1]

the blocksize limit is not a problem.
the 1mb limit "suggests" a 52gb bloat per year potential. so complainers like you would "suggest"  bitcoin would be well over 100gb by now.. yet it is not.
bitcoin has less data then the new GTA5 game. and yet millions of people have downloaded and installed GTA5 without crying like a little baby.
infact bitcoin data can fit on something the size of your fingernail


even after an increase to 20mb. the "suggested" potential blocksize will still be small enough to fit on a hard drive that can be bought for 25% the cost of an iphone..
and be able to store that data for a couple years....

yet millions of people happily and without crying spend 400% of that same hard drive size, upgrading their phones without concern.

thus its not a cost or size, or effort for people to store bitcoin data. it is just a naive and stupid mindset of people that have no clue and no desire to be a node and want to find any lame excuse they can to avoid being part of the network.
these same lame people probably have never spoke to their local retailers about the benefts of bitcoin. never even got a single business to accept bitcoin. and have no desire to hoard bitcoins, because all they want is free faucet grabs /play the markets to then sell back to fiat.

so will all the fiat lovers who are not bitcoin nodes, who have not got any businesses to accept bitcoin. please keep your comments to yourselves

[NorrisK]

Data size is exploding everywhere, not just in block size. It currently seems like a natural evolution to me to need more storage capacity OR find a way to compress the data without losing information.

[JackH]

franky1 - So your solution is to increase it 20x, but you are at the same time saying it wont be needed? That is the most riddiculous statement I have ever heard. You are prepared to allow something to break, yet realizing we wont need the 20x increase?

[NyeFe]

the blocksize limit is not a problem.
the 1mb limit "suggests" a 52gb bloat per year potential. so complainers like you would "suggest"  bitcoin would be well over 100gb by now.. yet it is not.
bitcoin has less data then the new GTA5 game. and yet millions of people have downloaded and installed GTA5 without crying like a little baby.
infact bitcoin data can fit on something the size of your fingernail


even after an increase to 20mb. the "suggested" potential blocksize will still be small enough to fit on a hard drive that can be bought for 25% the cost of an iphone..
and be able to store that data for a couple years....

yet millions of people happily and without crying spend 400% of that same hard drive size, upgrading their phones without concern.

thus its not a cost or size, or effort for people to store bitcoin data. it is just a naive and stupid mindset of people that have no clue and no desire to be a node and want to find any lame excuse they can to avoid being part of the network.
these same lame people probably have never spoke to their local retailers about the benefts of bitcoin. never even got a single business to accept bitcoin. and have no desire to hoard bitcoins, because all they want is free faucet grabs /play the markets to then sell back to fiat.

so will all the fiat lovers who are not bitcoin nodes, who have not got any businesses to accept bitcoin. please keep your comments to yourselves

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make, yet we have users like hund spreading FUD all over the forum.

[franky1]

franky1 - So your solution is to increase it 20x, but you are at the same time saying it wont be needed? That is the most riddiculous statement I have ever heard. You are prepared to allow something to break, yet realizing we wont need the 20x increase?

i never said it was needed as in urgently today.. but no one can say how soon bitcoin transactions will increase to a point that the 1mb is not enough.

that said it logical to have "potential" space to cope with any sudden change, rather then waiting for tx's to bottleneck and then rush to change things.
EG
many people are glad they have an overdraft on their cards. not because they need the extra cash, but when a emergency comes up and they have done too many transactions that month, they still have a financial buffer.

many people dont need 16gb of ram every second. but at times of the day they want to play a 4k resolution game.. its there

many people dont need a 6 pack of beer all day everyday, but at times when they want to get drunk, they are glad theres a beer waiting for them in the fridge.

the only question that really counts is if bitcoin will continue on the current github of developers or the code being controlled by just 2 people on hearns server

[hund]

Listen to this instead to some random crap from some senior/hero/legendary members bought accounts

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

[JackH]

Listen to this instead to some random crap from some senior/hero/legendary members bought accounts

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

This account is not purchased buddy, it has been mine since 29 May, 2011. And why do you need to blindly follow your "heroes" in order to make a decission? The rationaly is there regardless of whom is posting this, ie. nodes WILL drop off if they start becoming data centers for all the transactions in the world. Welcome to centralization, you just ruined Bitcoin.

[hund]

Gavin be like: "Let's destroy it now. It's urgent!"

[LiteCoinGuy]

@franky1

[hund]

the only question that really counts is if bitcoin will continue on the current github of developers or the code being controlled by just 2 people on hearns server

Slightly wrong. It doesn't matter who controls the github. It matters which github people choose to follow.

If Todd and Wuille and the others start their own github without gavin today i'll follow that!

[JackH]

Exactly, Bitcoin is open source! But right now that is being questioned via Gavin's attempt.

Gavin, when you gave the reigns of Bitcoin to Wladimir, you said you were going to work on the scaling solution. This is more than 6 months ago. Did you really in the past 6 months conclude that the scaling problem should be solved by nudging up the blocksize 20 times?

[franky1]

the only question that really counts is if bitcoin will continue on the current github of developers or the code being controlled by just 2 people on hearns server

Slightly wrong. It doesn't matter who controls the github. It matters which github people choose to follow.

If Todd and Wuille and the others start their own github without gavin today i'll follow that!

and what if todd and wuille have a closed github and they put in malicious code purely to profit themselves.
it should never be about what name has management of the hub.. it should ALWAYS be about what code is implimented and how diverse the access to the code is.

the 20mb is not an issue. financially, functionally or theoretically.. the issue you have is that the fork could become centralised and owned by just 2 individuals.
to me if i had the choice of:
only todd/wuille
only gavin/hearn
200 coders in a democratized system

id choose the 200 coders

[Amph]

franky1 - So your solution is to increase it 20x, but you are at the same time saying it wont be needed? That is the most riddiculous statement I have ever heard. You are prepared to allow something to break, yet realizing we wont need the 20x increase?

is better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it, when then it is needed, it's an aspect of foresight

[Meuh6879]

http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized

Oh My GOD ... i want this extension .ninja on my site