Bigger blocks don't scale!

[Pecunia non olet]

Gavincoin will bring node count further down and thus make the network less decentral. I don't see how offchain txs make the network less decentral. Some Gavin-bot explain please.

[DooMAD]

Gavincoin will bring node count further down and thus make the network less decentral. I don't see how offchain txs make the network less decentral. Some Gavin-bot explain please.

We could waste our time explaining to a sock puppet when you already know the answer.  Or better yet, you could go back to your self-moderated thread where you delete any posts that don't support your (and MP's) agenda.  You're not fooling enough people to make a difference.

[Pecunia non olet]

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

[jonald_fyookball]

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

lol.

How do you scale offchain transactions without trusted intermediaries?

If I want to buy a car with Bitcoin, is the car salesman really gonna
take my word for it: "Yeah i promise no one else has the private keys
and I won't try to move the funds as soon as I drive off the lot." 

[Pecunia non olet]

@colex
what does that have to do with it? Nothing, that's what.

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

lol.

How do you scale offchain transactions without trusted intermediaries?

If I want to buy a car with Bitcoin, is the car salesman really gonna
take my word for it: "Yeah i promise no one else has the private keys
and I won't try to move the funds as soon as I drive off the lot." 

You make your car payment on chain, dumbo.

[jonald_fyookball]

@colex
what does that have to do with it? Nothing, that's what.

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

lol.

How do you scale offchain transactions without trusted intermediaries?

If I want to buy a car with Bitcoin, is the car salesman really gonna
take my word for it: "Yeah i promise no one else has the private keys
and I won't try to move the funds as soon as I drive off the lot." 

You make your car payment on chain, dumbo.

So you admit offchain won't work there.

Lets try again..I am selling widgets on a website for 0.01 BTC, how do I
take offchain payments for that without using a centralized service?

[johnyj]

The storage will never be a problem but broadcasting 20M data throughout the network in 1-2 minutes will be a challenge. With the arriving of 4K TV, bandwidth should be upgraded to 1GB in not so far future, so at least in 5 years it will scale

[ArticMine]

Bigger blocks do scale. One only needs to step back and take a look at the history of technology over the last 50 years and the last 200 years.

Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin makes as much sense as running the VISA network using the tabulating machine and punch card technology of the 1930's and 1940's

[tss]

leave the code as it is.  market forces will work themselves out. 
there is no threat. 
the network will not crash.

[tss]

@colex
what does that have to do with it? Nothing, that's what.

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

lol.

How do you scale offchain transactions without trusted intermediaries?

If I want to buy a car with Bitcoin, is the car salesman really gonna
take my word for it: "Yeah i promise no one else has the private keys
and I won't try to move the funds as soon as I drive off the lot." 

You make your car payment on chain, dumbo.

So you admit offchain won't work there.

Lets try again..I am selling widgets on a website for 0.01 BTC, how do I
take offchain payments for that without using a centralized service?

if you're selling items for 0.01 btc you should use a third party and not want to clog the blockchain unless you're willing to pay the market determined fee. 

by keeping the network fee based you maintain decentralization

the network is decentralized.  not free.  value your bitcoin and the network they are on.  do not promote bitcoin spam on the chain.  it will devalue all of your holdings.

[Pecunia non olet]

if you're selling items for 0.01 btc you should use a third party and not want to clog the blockchain unless you're willing to pay the market determined fee.  

by keeping the network fee based you maintain decentralization

the network is decentralized.  not free.  value your bitcoin and the network they are on.  do not promote bitcoin spam on the chain.  it will devalue all of your holdings.

Could not have said it better. 0.01 payments can be made in the cheapest way whatever that might be (if there is demand more service providers will pop up like changetip).

One can make 0.01 payments on chain but needs to be prepared to pay fee. If you want to save on fees for your small txs you'll find service providers who help you save up on fees.
All this works itself out with free market mechanisms.

Your car payment can be and will be made on chain and you won't mind to pay the fee for that.

Keeping the block limit means everyone keeps the access to the network but just needs to be prepared to pay fees for the txs. With Gavinfork many people will loose direct access due to bandwidth requirements. (all of africa, a lot of asia, a lot of south america). The Gavinfork effectively prevents access for half the globe. I'd rather pay fee or use 3rd parties for micro txs than loosing half the world for adoption.

[Pecunia non olet]

Bigger blocks do scale. One only needs to step back and take a look at the history of technology over the last 50 years and the last 200 years.

Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin makes as much sense as running the VISA network using the tabulating machine and punch card technology of the 1930's and 1940's

Nope, bigger blocks don't scale. They just increase thoughput but "scaling" is something else ...

[LiteCoinGuy]

So i don't get a straight forward answer from the propaganda-gavin-cheerleader-bots?

Possibly because it's bogus to say offchain txs would be centralizing the network. They don't. 20MB blocks do.
Checkmate, bitch.

What are you talking about? First off it isn't 20mb anymore it's 8 and secondly no it doesn't centralize shit. They won't be full blocks until there is enough transactions and if we didn't have them at that time a transaction wouldn't take 10 minutes for a single confirm but would take 80.



Storage is not a concern for the blockchain being centralized, so please tell me how a larger block size centralizes anything?

It looks like you're pumping altcoins right now honestly based off your recent post.

some people dont have a good understanding of the problem at all. storage is no problem.

micro sd with 512 GB by the way

[Buffer Overflow]

^ 512GB! That's unbelievable.

[ArticMine]

...

some people dont have a good understanding of the problem at all. storage is no problem.

micro sd with 512 GB by the way

They are still thinking in terms of punch cards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card Don't you understand how many punchcards it takes to store 512 GB, and how many forests will have to be cut down for each rewrite of the data.

[franky1]

we are already using gavincoin and have been for 5 years. those hating gavin coin want the following:

a blockchain that has multiple otherblockchains attached.
the result of this is:
20 blockchains in one ledger =same databloat
19 premined altcoins = greedy profiteering for the sidechain creators
20 x more available coins in a single ledger = bitcoin no longer rare

thats if there was to be a truly decentralized block chain (multicoin ledger).. but we all know that the sidechain guys just want to make a centralized database and have people trade fake/counterfeit tx's that are not bitcoins.

sidechains ruins everything bitcoin supposed to be,
but as gavin proposes to simply expand the potential limit of blocks does no harm.

[Amph]

Bigger blocks do scale. One only needs to step back and take a look at the history of technology over the last 50 years and the last 200 years.

Keeping the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin makes as much sense as running the VISA network using the tabulating machine and punch card technology of the 1930's and 1940's

Nope, bigger blocks don't scale. They just increase thoughput but "scaling" is something else ...

what about you makes them scale, with an algorithm, if the amount is between x and y, raise to xMB ecc...

it should not be too hard i believe, what will prevent this from working?

[JeromeL]

Comments?  

18 nodes are running XT's latest version.

That's less than 1% of the network. So what is all this fuss about ?

At this point, we should stop talking about Gavin's project to fork Bitcoin to increase blocksize, because it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Let's move on to more relevant topics.

[Amph]

Comments?  

18 nodes are running XT's latest version.

That's less than 1% of the network. So what is all this fuss about ?

At this point, we should stop talking about Gavin's project to fork Bitcoin to increase blocksize, because it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Let's move on to more relevant topics.

they are just trying it, and don't forget that the changes are not even operative, basically xt it is like core with two others small features

[DooMAD]

Comments?  

18 nodes are running XT's latest version.

That's less than 1% of the network. So what is all this fuss about ?

At this point, we should stop talking about Gavin's project to fork Bitcoin to increase blocksize, because it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Let's move on to more relevant topics.

Trying to stifle the discussion by asking people to stop talking about it makes me a little suspicious of your motives.  You posted basically the same thing in this thread yesterday, so I may as well give the same reply:

Running XT at the moment is a token gesture unless you're interested in it for its other features.  The update for the increased blocksize hasn't gone live yet.  I'm sure you'd like the current numbers to be representative of support for the fork, but they aren't.  I can assure you this topic isn't going anywhere.