Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 05:06:09 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal?  (Read 5066 times)
shulio
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


Akche, Türkiye'nin Dijital Parası


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:05:56 AM
 #41

I don't understand why people refuse to the fork,if it is something necessary

everybody refuse but nodoby purpose anything

It is not something necessary for now in some peoples mind, but they dont provide any solution for it, mostly people who are oppose it because they have a fork-o-phobia, forking btc will sometimes leave btc to be worthless and that is their main consent about this .

▄██████████▀▀█████████████████████▄
████████▀  ▄███████████████████████
██████▀  ▄███████▀  ▀██████████████
█████   ▄███████▀    ▀█████████████
████   ████████▀  ▄▄  ▀████████████
███   █████▀▀█▀  ▄██▄  ▀█▀▀████████
███   █▀▀   ▄▀  ▄████▄  ▀▄   ▀▀████
███   ██████▀  ▄██████▄  ▀█████████
███   █████▀  ▄████████▄  ▀████████
███    ▀███  ▄██████████▄  ████▀ ██
████    ▀██▄▄████████████▄▄███   ██
█████     ▀█████████████████▀   ███
██████▄      ▀▀█████████▀▀    ▄████
████████▄                  ▄███████
███████████▄▄          ▄▄██████████
▀█████████████████████████████████▀
AKCHE   ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
██ ████
   ████
Akche, Türkiye'nin Dijital Parası
──────────────────── 29 Ekim 2017
╔═ WHITE PAPER ═╗
▣╠══ BOUNTY ══╣▣
╚═  ANNTHREAD  ═╝
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██


                  ▄▄██▄
              ▄▄█▀▀  ██
          ▄▄█▀▀      █▌
      ▄▄█▀▀   ▄▀    ██
 ▄▄▄█▀▀    ▄█▀     ▐█
██      ▄██▀       █▌
 ▀▀██▄███▀        ██
     ██▀▀█▄▄▄     █▌
      █▄  ██▀▀▀█▄██
       █▄█▀

             ▄██▄
           ▐████   ▄▄
   █████     ██████████
    █████████████████▀
 ▄████████████▀████▌
██████████     ▀████    
 ▀▀   █████     ██████████
      ▀████▌▄████████████▀
    ▄▄▄███████████████▌
   ██████████▀    ▐████
    ▀▀▀  ████▌     ▀▀▀
         ▀███▀

       ▄▄▄▄▄▄
    ▄████████
    █████▀▀▀▀
   ▐████
   ▐████
████████████
████████████
   ▐████
   ▐████
   ▐████
   ▐████

▄                 ▄████▄▄    ▄
▀██             ████████████▀
 ████▄         █████████████▀
 ▀████████▄▄   █████████████
█▄▄█████████████████████████
 ██████████████████████████
   ▀██████████████████████
    █████████████████████
     ▀█████████████████▀
       ▄█████████████▀
▀▀███████████████▀▀
[/ce
1513357569
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357569

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357569
Reply with quote  #2

1513357569
Report to moderator
1513357569
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357569

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357569
Reply with quote  #2

1513357569
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513357569
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357569

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357569
Reply with quote  #2

1513357569
Report to moderator
1513357569
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357569

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357569
Reply with quote  #2

1513357569
Report to moderator
1513357569
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513357569

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513357569
Reply with quote  #2

1513357569
Report to moderator
fat buddah
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:07:31 AM
 #42

I wonder when these gavin-tards get it that Bitcoin is not broken and running fine. It is a rule of complex system to not change them when they are not broken. There is currently a consensus for 1MB blocks else the network would not be running.

The anti-20MB people have to prove nothing and also have to deliver nothing. All they have to do is tell the reasons for the veto and that's it. There is consensus for Bitcoin as is today else it would not be running. If you want to change it you need consensus. If you get a veto (which you did) then there is no consensus on a change and you need to accept that.

After getting a veto for your proposal you have two options:
1) producing a better proposal which will not get a veto
or
2) leave the group (bitcoin in this case)

that is how consensus principle works if you like it or not. There is even more sophisticated methods of approaching consensus but since you are all behaving like apes i'm not even trying.
It's not like consensus democracies would be something new or something. They are just not as commen and people generally have no idea about it.

Minster of Dope for "the official Bitcoin foundation"
SuperClam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 785


CLAM Developer


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 08:22:49 AM
 #43

I don't see much issue here
Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball.
HD space is still going down in cost.

Storage is not a major bottleneck.

Bandwidth and latency are legitimate concerns from my reading of the material; though the current proposed change doesn't saturate either, depending on your personal situation.

One of the issues-at-hand concerns adopting strategies that can easily become centralization forces now, or in the future.

It is not something necessary for now in some peoples mind...


Given a serious situation, the network has in the past proven it's ability to fork quite quickly.
Further, even given a backlog in the mempool, users who include reasonable transaction fees with their transaction would be more likely to have their transaction included into a block.  Meaning: The network would work fine.

It is a fact that storing and broadcasting your transactions on the chain is not "free". 
You are enjoying the resources of the network of full-nodes.

...but they dont provide any solution for it...

There are a variety of solutions that have been proposed, although there is admitted lack of implementations.  However, development resources would be more likely applied to a problem that was actually imminent.

...forking btc will sometimes leave btc to be worthless and that is their main consent about this .

Not true.
No Bitcoin will be "lost" -
With the exception of someone who receives an incoming transaction on the "losing" chain (that is not posted to the "winning" chain) and that output is then signed to a different address on the "winning" chain.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147
Proof-Of-Chain, 100% Distributed BEFORE Launch.
Everyone who owned BTC, LTC, or DOGE at launch got free CLAMS.
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 09:06:32 AM
 #44

My proposal: a slow, progressive and cautious approach. First we increase to 2MB, then to 4MB, then to 8MB and so forth. Doubling the block size seems the sensible approach - increase it in one single step by x20 seems overkill.

The reasons argued by those who defend a cautious and slow growth are solid; on the contrary, those argued by Hearn and his acolytes are reckless BS.

fairglu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 09:12:18 AM
 #45

Let's go back to the blunt technicalities: what happens if the block size does not grow?

  • more memory usage (ever growing mempool)
  • more network contention (unconfirmed tx keep getting flown around and resubmitted)
  • more double spends (from resubmitted tx)
  • growing minimal fees (pools trying to deal with the above, and treat any tx without enough fee as spam)

Why? because people with unconfirmed tx would just keep re-submitting and spam, as that's the most effective technique to get *your* transaction through in a congested traffic situation. Just like elbowing is the most effective technique to get through a crowd.

Yes, it would be selfish, but yes it would happen.

So let's face it: limiting block size will NOT reduce network contention or make nodes lighter. Only reduced bitcoin usage would.

Growing fees would achieve reduced bitcoin usage, though, but is that what you really want?

neoneros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


I can draw your avatar!


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 09:15:10 AM
 #46

Thought the increase might be big, how big of a change is it in the core itself? Does a lot depend on the variable that defines the size of the blocks? What is the biggest fear in this?

If you have a room with a lightbulb, and is has to low light for reading, you can change the bulb with a higher intensity so you can read again, no big deal. I cannot think of it that the increase would actually be a big issue for the source and implementation. I could be wrong, not that into the code of the proposed fork itself, but I think the impact and positive outcome are larger than the actual risks that the code would break and be to hasty implemented.

And what if it does fail? It will be tested and tried, then it will slowly be adopted into the chain, if it works we can embrace it, if it fails, we will find out soon enough and we can just all go back a version and learn from it and revise the plans.

thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 02:46:25 PM
 #47

I don't see much issue here

Satoshi released with 33MB, he said it could be increased later, and Gav seems on the ball.

HD space is still going down in cost.



2TB HDDs are so incredibly cheap these days. In 10 years imagine, 2TB will be like what 2GB is for us now, and we will probably have cheap large SSD disks by then too.

NorrisK
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1484



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 02:58:59 PM
 #48

How about some form of lossless compression? Would that at all be possible in case of blockchain data? Would be interesting..

Buttknuckle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84

★YoBit.Net★ 100+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 03:02:27 PM
 #49

I'm anti fork an my proposal is to just fire Gavin and be happy thereafter.
And he should take his fanclub with him!

One of the fud mongers speaks.  DO you care to address the fact that the team opposing the fork has a conflict of interest?  Of course not you will just continue to spread fud.

Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 05:21:00 PM
 #50

How about some form of lossless compression? Would that at all be possible in case of blockchain data? Would be interesting..

Block data is high entropy, and high entropy data doesn't compress very well, typically it actually increases in size.

For example, search Google for a file called "million random numbers", it is a VERY high entropy file.  Download it and compress it with as many compression tools you can get your hands on, in all cases the "compressed" file will be larger than the source.

Compression of block data in the traditional sense is useless and pointless.

Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
GenTarkin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2170


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 06:08:12 PM
 #51

This is the situation and what we know:





To scale further by any decent increase ... would mean full nodes wanting an incentive for anyone to actually run a full node.
Whos gonna build a server farm to just run full node and not get paid anything!? that would be an idiot thing to do.
The protocol should somehow award full nodes....
Dont ask me how tho... LOL .... a portion of the tx fees?

GenTarkin's MOD Kncminer Titan custom firmware! v1.0.4! <--- CLICK HERE
Donations: bitcoin- 1Px71mWNQNKW19xuARqrmnbcem1dXqJ3At || litecoin- LYXrLis3ik6TRn8tdvzAyJ264DRvwYVeEw
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


Destroyer of Buffets


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 06:18:19 PM
 #52

Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.

If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork.

ElectricMucus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596


God of the code.


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 06:29:27 PM
 #53

Hahaha, where is the debate about alternative proposals, there have been some, yet nobody in the "pro-fork" camp even bothers to dismiss them.
Instead the thread is filled with the same arguments as everywhere else.

I'm losing more an more opportunities to see this forum as anything else than a laughing stock.
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484


Hello You


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 06:40:29 PM
 #54

Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.

If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork.

It was never really alive in the first place.


ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


Monero Core Team


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 07:45:23 PM
 #55

Bitcoin is nearly all-but-dead to the general public.

If you want to kill its chances of mainstream adoption entirely, then by all means, please proceed with the fork.

It was never really alive in the first place.



Do you seriously believe that VISA could run its payment network using the punch card and tabulating machine technology of the 1930's and 1940's when credit cards first came out?  Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit is exactly the same: Assuming the current costs for bandwidth, CPU, memory, computer storage etc. will stay the same for ever.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 07:49:20 PM
 #56

My proposal: Err on the side of decentralization.
That's not a proposal but a stance, we need more ideas. I think we should do the 8mb fork and use the time before that gets full to figure out and find a new solution to the problem.

ebliever
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 07:53:50 PM
 #57

Hahaha, where is the debate about alternative proposals, there have been some, yet nobody in the "pro-fork" camp even bothers to dismiss them.
Instead the thread is filled with the same arguments as everywhere else.

I'm losing more an more opportunities to see this forum as anything else than a laughing stock.

+1 Here is where the anti-20 MB crowd had their chance, and blew it.

I like bitcointalk, but it has an atmosphere that is kind of a mix of that Star Wars bar on Tatooine and a giant food fight.

Luke 12:15-21

Ephesians 2:8-9
bitcreditscc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 07:59:58 PM
 #58

how about we see these people argue it in this thread :- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 where everything is summed up real quick but the real professionals

ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


Monero Core Team


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:02:19 PM
 #59

My proposal: Err on the side of decentralization.
That's not a proposal but a stance, we need more ideas. I think we should do the 8mb fork and use the time before that gets full to figure out and find a new solution to the problem.

The problem with the centralization argument is that that the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit are ignoring Nielsen's Law. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ Here is that math: Internet bandwidth grows at an annualized rate of 50% a year. Now start with 1MBit/s in 2009 and figure out what the equivalent amount of bandwidth would be in mid 2016 when the proposed hard fork is supposed to take place. The answer is 20.9 MBit/s. So a 1MB blocksize limit at the start of 2009 is equivalent to 20.9 MB blocksize limit in mid 2016.  

Does it now make sense why Gavin picked 20 MB? He did the math, something the proponents of keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit have simply chosen not to do.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


Monero Core Team


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 08:04:51 PM
 #60

how about we see these people argue it in this thread :- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 where everything is summed up real quick but the real professionals

I believe jgarzik the OP of the thread is now on the side of keeping the 1 MB limit. He was not happy when I dug up his thread back in 2013.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!