The question Gavin and Hearn cannot answer

[BillyBobZorton]

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?

The question here is: WHAT do you propose? What is the solution then, if not raising the blocksize? Thats what anti blocksize upgrade guys cannot answer as well.

Look at this shit and answer:




The fuck are we going to do when we reach the limit?
What can we do to avoid the fork? I agree that is a shitty workaround and a fork is not desired, but what can we do about it?

[1714022333]

1714022333

[1714022333]

1714022333

[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?

The question here is: WHAT do you propose? What is the solution then, if not raising the blocksize? Thats what anti blocksize upgrade guys cannot answer as well.

Look at this shit and answer:




The fuck are we going to do when we reach the limit?
What can we do to avoid the fork? I agree that is a shitty workaround and a fork is not desired, but what can we do about it?

Alright, we have less than 12 months.

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months. Can we at least WAIT to see what that does? If they still dont solve our problem, at least to some significant extend, I will switch side.

[franky1]

Alright, we have less than 12 months.

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months. Can we at least WAIT to see what that does? If they still dont solve our problem, at least to some significant extend, I will switch side.

blockstream is not bitcoin.. its a totally new chain that not only mutes the argument of databloat as it not only has to handle 1chain, but multiple chains.. but alsois just profiting the sidechain owners who premine the hell out of it.

i would rather bitcoin continue with less data limits preventing expansions.. rather that having 20 different altcoins premined and attached to bitcoin so that greedy people like lukejr, gmaxwell and wuille can sell the premine for bitcoins..

imagine 20 altcoins all attached to one app. the databloat will exceed what gavin proposes, of just having bitcoin.. but it looks like you and hund have been sniffing the magicdust supplied by greedy people and ignored the benefits of just concentrating on a bitcoin only blockchain ledger.

blockstream would suddenly make bitcoins 21mill coin ledger limit become much much more. making bitcoin less rare due to the fact that people can hoard other crappy coins as part of the same app..

bitcoin needs to stay as a single ledger with only 21mill coins.. if people want alts.. buy them separately without ruining bitcoins ledger

[Meuh6879]

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months.

no, it takes 6 months to 2 year for professional to develop infrastructure and software to build sidechains.
Bitcoin network must answer with proportional result to a regulary increase of transactions.

sidechain are to professional payment monitoring ... and commission rely on immediat cash converter job (bitpay, coinbase, etcs ...).

[JackH]

Alright, we have less than 12 months.

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months. Can we at least WAIT to see what that does? If they still dont solve our problem, at least to some significant extend, I will switch side.

blockstream is not bitcoin.. its a totally new chain that not only mutes the argument of databloat as it not only has to handle 1chain, but multiple chains.. but alsois just profiting the sidechain owners who premine the hell out of it.

i would rather bitcoin continue with less data limits preventing expansions.. rather that having 20 different altcoins premined and attached to bitcoin so that greedy people like lukejr, gmaxwell and wuille can sell the premine for bitcoins..

imagine 20 altcoins all attached to one app. the databloat will exceed what gavin proposes, of just having bitcoin.. but it looks like you and hund have been sniffing the magicdust supplied by greedy people and ignored the benefits of just concentrating on a bitcoin only blockchain ledger.

blockstream would suddenly make bitcoins 21mill coin ledger limit become much much more. making bitcoin less rare due to the fact that people can hoard other crappy coins as part of the same app..

bitcoin needs to stay as a single ledger with only 21mill coins.. if people want alts.. buy them separately without ruining bitcoins ledger

I am not sure you understand the reason and idea behind sidechains. They are the solution to Bitcoin bloat and the holy grail to scalability. It wont be altcoins, it will be a way to mitigate the blot of transactions for everyone.

There is something called micropayments in bitcoinj, ironically made by Mike Hearn, and is a very good proposal and solution to handling micropayments in order to NOT bloat the blockchain itself.

If you think every coffee purchase on the planet will be directly stored in the blockchain, you have not understood the basic principles behind data storage and data transfer. It simply wont happen in a decentralized manner, and proposing 20MB blocks is moving away from decentralization into centralizing the entire structure into the hands of a few data centers than can afford to run full nodes.

[Netnox]

Bitcoin is supposed to be a global payment system and ready for big amount of transactions, you are basically saying 'i don't want bitcoin to succeed' gtfo man.

[JackH]

Bitcoin is supposed to be a global payment system and ready for big amount of transactions, you are basically saying 'i don't want bitcoin to succeed' gtfo man.

You CANNOT scale the worlds payments into the blockchain. You are delusional to think that all transactions will be hosted and mitigated via nodes. Increasing the blockchain size is NOT a solution. Its a fear patch!

[franky1]

Bitcoin is supposed to be a global payment system and ready for big amount of transactions, you are basically saying 'i don't want bitcoin to succeed' gtfo man.

You CANNOT scale the worlds payments into the blockchain. You are delusional to think that all transactions will be hosted and mitigated via nodes. Increasing the blockchain size is NOT a solution. Its a fear patch!

no one with any connection to bitcoin code ever envisions bitcoin to handle every transaction of the world.
infact even in the VISA/mastercard market. they do not just have 1 database (ledger) they have dozens..

1 for dollar
1 for pounds
1 for yuan
etc etc

then if you divide up the fact that there are 4 major card companies, each with separate ledgers per currency then you will work out that the number of tx's per ledger is far less than advertised.

for instance if i wanted to buy something on amazon (from the UK) my tx wont be on the same ledger as you buying something from amazon from america, even if we both used a visacard.

uk payments and US payments get processed in different offices and end up in different visa owned bank accounts.

in short bitcoin does not need to cope with the worlds combined transactions. even if bitcoin has just 21million users (out of 7 billion) it will be a success.

[futureofbitcoin]

that logic in the OP; I'm speechless.

So you're saying, because 20mb might not be enough in the future, 1mb is enough forever? Totally makes sense. They need to create a nobel prize for logic and give it to you.

[JackH]

that logic in the OP; I'm speechless.

So you're saying, because 20mb might not be enough in the future, 1mb is enough forever? Totally makes sense. They need to create a nobel prize for logic and give it to you.

That is not what I said, stop twisting my words!

I said that 20MB is not enough anyway, thus this is NOT a solution, thus moving ahead with the increase breaks more than it solves. Because it actually does break more than it solves, by having nodes dropping off even faster.

Right now, you better wait for sidechains and stop hoping for arbitrary raising of the block size.