Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 05:00:12 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 7 8 9 10 11 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too  (Read 8429 times)
fryarminer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 02:18:48 PM
 #41

The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development.

look at Nielsen's Law:

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem.

Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install.

How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk  if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully?

If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using.

My question is, what's the rush? If you're gonna run a node, you're gonna run a node. Its going to be running from now until forever so what's the rush? It's not like you're waiting for Gimp to load so you can work.
1513098012
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513098012

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513098012
Reply with quote  #2

1513098012
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513098012
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513098012

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513098012
Reply with quote  #2

1513098012
Report to moderator
forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 676



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 03:01:46 PM
 #42

The 1mb cap wasn't introduced because of concerns over the bandwidth requirements for nodes, it was intended to be an anti-spam measure, but apparently it failed miserably in that goal.  The blockchain didn't "grow huge" before the cap was put in place.  Also, it's not a "solution" at all if it doesn't solve the problem of limiting the amount of fees the miners can collect.  Nodes won't be any use at all without sufficiently incentivised miners to secure the network.  In order to generate more fees for miners, it will be necessary to accommodate more transactions over time.  Users want to get their transactions on a blockchain.  If Bitcoin isn't the simplest and most convenient way to do that because you're funneling transactions into your lightning colostomy bag network, another coin will come along that hasn't been artificially crippled and doesn't rely on a third party bolted on top.  If that coin turns out to be a more attractive proposition for users, what's their reason to continue using Bitcoin?  If users are then transacting on another network, why are miners going to stick around to secure this one?

Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee.  And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue.  Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes.  If it doesn't, something else will.  

Why would users care if their transacations went over the blockchain or not? All they want is to transfer money.
And why do we need to increase transacations to increase mining fees? When we could just increase the fees?



I do not agree with either parts of your post. Filling up a block costs money, and I doubt that someone would be able to make huge blocks without that costing them a lot. Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening.
There is no risking with a proper hard fork. Why risk using third party solutions; i.e. meaning we stop relying on the protocol itself?

So you are advocating a even higher block size if the spammers fill up the 8MB blocks?

You have not? What about those recent spam attacks that happened? A lot of people were complaining about their transactions not going through because the blocks were full. The market did not adapt that time, nor do I understand why people think that higher fees are going to be beneficial to Bitcoin.

The market did not adapt? Are you kidding? The only people that complained were people that used no fees or very low fees. Those transactions should not be on the blockchain to begin with. They are SPAM.
Which shows that the current anti SPAM system works.

Wrong. Nobody is saying that it is the best possible option. If the majority vote for X, then you go with X regardless of what is best. Is this not the way that decentralized consensus was supposed to work around here?
Obviously people have different opinions when we talk about the best possible option, so there is none.

The best option is out there. It's just that we cannot agree what the best option is. And therefore we cannot reach consensus.

LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 03:51:17 PM
 #43


Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:


“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."

Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"

Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"

BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"

Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):


“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”

BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):

“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100






Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 04:00:44 PM
 #44

So you are advocating a even higher block size if the spammers fill up the 8MB blocks?
I did not state that.

The market did not adapt? Are you kidding? The only people that complained were people that used no fees or very low fees. Those transactions should not be on the blockchain to begin with. They are SPAM.
Which shows that the current anti SPAM system works.
If by adapt you mean making Bitcoin obsolete due to high fees, then yes it did. A TX that includes the standard fee is not a spam transaction. Standard fees were not enough at that time for some.

The best option is out there. It's just that we cannot agree what the best option is. And therefore we cannot reach consensus.
How do you define 'best'? Are you saying that there is a perfect solution among one of the proposals?


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
thejaytiesto
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:23:14 PM
 #45


Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:


“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."

Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"

Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"

BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"

Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):


“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”

BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):

“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100







Damn XT already got 44% of the hashing power? How can I follow the statistics in real life of this? It will be interesting to see if it reaches super majority. It's really growing fast it seems. Maybe we have bigger blocks sooner than expected.

forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 676



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:35:22 PM
 #46

I did not state that.

The please explain what you meant by:

-snip-
 Even if this was the case, a simple higher cap can be implemented to prevent this from happening.
-snip-


If by adapt you mean making Bitcoin obsolete due to high fees, then yes it did. A TX that includes the standard fee is not a spam transaction. Standard fees were not enough at that time for some.

That's FUD. We don't even max out the blocks today. So it won't be obsolete anytime soon. It's only healthy to have a working fee system. Who decides what a standard fee is?
I think the market should, you don't seem to be of the same opinion?

How do you define 'best'? Are you saying that there is a perfect solution among one of the proposals?

I have my opinion and you have yours thats all I'm saying. Obviously people disagree on what the best proposal is.
I think we need more time to debate what the best option is.
Therefore I think it would be best to not do anything hasty such as BitcoinXT.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694


GUNBOT Licenses -20% with ref. code 'GrumpyKitty'


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 04:50:45 PM
 #47

That's FUD. We don't even max out the blocks today. So it won't be obsolete anytime soon. It's only healthy to have a working fee system. Who decides what a standard fee is?
I think the market should, you don't seem to be of the same opinion?
In that case I was talking about the natural growth, not the average calculated when spam transactions are included. No, it is not FUD. Bit by bit some are trying to make Bitcoin lose its advantages such as low fees.
Actually I believe that with Bitcoin a set of fixed rules related to almost everything is best. People can not be trusted with anything these days and love exploiting things. Letting "market" decide would eventually lead to something like sending $1 and paying $2 as a fee.

I have my opinion and you have yours thats all I'm saying. Obviously people disagree on what the best proposal is.
I think we need more time to debate what the best option is.
Therefore I think it would be best to not do anything hasty such as BitcoinXT.
People can't agree because almost everyone around here is closed minded. At first I was willing to accept Gavins proposal, however that did not turn out to be the best choice of action and thus I began changing my stance towards this matter. I'm willing to compensate to a 2 MB increase as Jeff proposed and I openly welcome other solutions (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). However, people on the other side of the argument do not seem to want to compensate to anything. It's their way or no way at all.


          ▄▄█████▌▐█████▄▄
       ▄█████████▌    ▀▀▀███▄
     ▄███████████▌  ▄▄▄▄   ▀██▄
   ▄█████████████▌  ▀▄▄▀     ▀██▄
  ▐██████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄       ▀█▌
 ▐███████████████▌             ▀█▌
 ████████████████▌  ▀▀▀█         ██
▐████████████████▌  ▄▄▄▄         ██▌
▐████████████████▌  ▀  ▀         ██▌
 ████████████████▌  █▀▀█         ██
 ▐███████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀        ▄█▌
  ▐██████████████▌  ▀▀▀▀       ▄█▌
   ▀█████████████▌  ▀▀█▀     ▄██▀
     ▀███████████▌  ▀▀▀▀   ▄██▀
       ▀█████████▌    ▄▄▄███▀
          ▀▀█████▌▐█████▀▀
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
▬◉▬
      ▄▄▄
 ▄▄█████████▄▄
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
   █▌▐█ █▌▐█
 ▄███████████▄
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄






▄█████████████▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████████
██▀▀█▀▀████████
▀█████████████▀
LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 05:30:10 PM
 #48

The main problem is fewer and fewer people will be able to run nodes. Hard disk space is definitely not a problem, it gets cheaper, now bandwidth, thats another history, i dont think moore's law follows there, the bandwith development is not as steady as HDD development.

look at Nielsen's Law:

http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

we dont talk about 100 MB blocks - we talk about 6, 8 or 16 MB blocks in a few years (when they are actually full). hundreds of millions of people can support such nodes today. no problem.

Tell me, how long does it take to initialize your full node today on your particular hardware? I am talking about a fresh install.

How long does it take to re-index the blocks that are already on disk  if your Bitcoin core happens to shut down ungracefully?

If you think these times are not a problem, then I'd like to know what kind of ninja hardware you are using.

in my view it is not a problem to initialize my full node and wait 10-15 minutes. but your assumption is based on the bitcoin software from today. the software will be improved over time. things will work faster - pruning for example.

LiteCoinGuy
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148


In Satoshi I Trust


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 03:43:35 PM
 #49

more than 64% of total hashing power are in favor of 8 MB blocks. i dont know if KnC miner is already included here - so it could be more than 75%.

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/

meono
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 04:03:01 PM
 #50


Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:


“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."

Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"

Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"

BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"

Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):


“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”

BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):

“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100







Damn XT already got 44% of the hashing power? How can I follow the statistics in real life of this? It will be interesting to see if it reaches super majority. It's really growing fast it seems. Maybe we have bigger blocks sooner than expected.

Only idiots dont see larger block is inevitable. Its sad that the bitcoin core devs act like a bunch of children and force us to choose XT to voice our vote.

They think because they're core devs, we have to follow them? idiots
meono
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 04:09:07 PM
 #51


Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:


“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."

Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"

Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"

BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"

Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):


“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”

BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):

“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100



What i want to see if Theymos will follow his words and ..... stop supporting all the services above on his site "www.bitcoin.org"....

LOL lets see if he can shoot himself in the foot.
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 04:18:18 PM
 #52

more than 64% of total hashing power are in favor of 8 MB blocks. i dont know if KnC miner is already included here - so it could be more than 75%.

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/

While I certainly support larger blocks, I'd err on the side of caution with those percentages.  The pool operators may well be pushing for 8mb blocks, but there's no guarantee that everyone currently contributing hash power to those pools will go along with it.  The numbers will be subject to change as miners switch pools to suit their blocksize preference.

We're already seeing some desperate characters on the forum trying to make out like the contest is already over, but it's early days yet.  XT may only represent 3% of the nodes at the moment, but it was only 1.5% the other day, so the momentum is building and will most likely continue to do so.  This will probably go on for a couple of weeks, if not months, before we can start to get a sense of the real picture as to which blocksize will win support overall.  I'm confident it's going to be 8mb, though.

meono
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 04:22:33 PM
 #53

more than 64% of total hashing power are in favor of 8 MB blocks. i dont know if KnC miner is already included here - so it could be more than 75%.

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gryjy/slushs_pool_endorses_8mb_blocks/

While I certainly support larger blocks, I'd err on the side of caution with those percentages.  The pool operators may well be pushing for 8mb blocks, but there's no guarantee that everyone currently contributing hash power to those pools will go along with it.  The numbers will be subject to change as miners switch pools to suit their blocksize preference.

We're already seeing some desperate characters on the forum trying to make out like the contest is already over, but it's early days yet.  XT may only represent 3% of the nodes at the moment, but it was only 1.5% the other day, so the momentum is building and will most likely continue to do so.  This will probably go on for a couple of weeks, if not months, before we can start to get a sense of the real picture as to which blocksize will win support overall.  I'm confident it's going to be 8mb, though.

mining pools? where the fuck you're coming from? 2012?

This is 2015, there aint any mining pool thats worth considerable hashing power.

We're talking about industrial miners here. Not mining pools..... I'm sorry if i offend those USB miners.... i know your size is so tiny.
bitllionaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 04:29:26 PM
 #54

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

               ▄█▄
            ▄█ ▀█▀
     ▄ ▄███▄▄████▄▀ ▄▄▀▄
    ▀█▄████
██████▀▄█████▀▄▀
   ▄█▀▄
███████████████████▄
 ▄██▀█▀
▀▀▀███▀▀▀█████▄▄▄▀█▀▄
 ▄█▀▀   ▀█
███▀▄████████ █▀█▄▄
██▀  ▀ ▀ ▀
██████████▄   ▄▀▀█▄
     ▀ ▀
  ███▀▀▀▀▀████▌ ▄  ▀
          ████████████▌   █
        █████████████▀
        ▀▀▀██▀▀██▀▀
           ▀▀  ▀▀
.BTC-GREEN.       ▄▄████████▄▄
    ▄██████████████▄
  ▄██████
██████████████▄
 ▄███
███████████████████▄
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
 ▀███████████████████████▀
  ▀█████████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
.Ecological Community in the Green Planet.
❱❱❱❱❱❱     WHITEPAGE    |    ANN THREAD     ❰❰❰❰❰❰
           ▄███▄▄
       ▄▄█████████▄
      ▄████████████▌
   ▄█████████████▄▄
 ▄████████████████████
███████████████▄
▄████████████████████▀
███████████████████████▀
 ▀▀██████▀██▌██████▀
   ▀██▀▀▀  ██  ▀▀▀▀▀▀
           ██
           ██▌
          ▐███▄
.
meono
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 04:34:53 PM
 #55

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

Because of group of ppl who's involved with sidechain project happens to be.... core devs. Look it up and see they're acting like children when Gavin want to move forward with the blocksize increase debate. They left the community no choice but to support Gavin.

Then they come here to censor anything BitcoinXT related ,.... calling it altcoin. What do they expect? waiting for them like they fucking own the bitcoin network?
funkenstein
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 979


Khazad ai-menu!


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 07:57:15 PM
 #56

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

Heya Smiley  

Off the top of my helmet:

1) They want it to be easier to maintain the full chain / full node, not harder
2) They don't think block size affects use / adoption rates (rather it affects logistics, fees)
3) They want to encourage alt-coin use Wink  


"Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks."
http://vtscc.org  http://woodcoin.info
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 08:11:14 PM
 #57

Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase

because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic.
that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend.
funkenstein
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 979


Khazad ai-menu!


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 09:07:15 PM
 #58


Bitcoin can support a large scale and it must, for all sorts of reasons.


And before I state an opinion or refute anything, we see a big problem with your argument.  You never say how bigger blocks is needed for large scale!!  Look at e.g., USD.  Block size = 0 forever and always, yet it seems a lot of people use it anyway.   I mean, you could try to make the argument that a larger block size would tend towards quicker adoption or whatever, but ..  you haven't tried. 

Quote

Amongst others:

  
1. Currencies have network effects. A currency that has few users is
   simply not competitive with currencies that have many. There's no such
   thing as a settlement currency for high value transactions only, as
   evidenced by the ever-dropping importance of gold.
Few users != smaller blocks, as I said already.  If you want to argue it is, go - do so.  I'm listening. 

Quote

   2. A decentralised currency that the vast majority can't use doesn't
   change the amount of centralisation in the world. Most people will still
   end up using banks, with all the normal problems. You cannot solve a
   problem by creating a theoretically pure solution that's out of reach of
   ordinary people: just ask academic cryptographers!


It's not clear to me why different size blocks would change Jo Schmoe's use habits.  Again, there are no blocks with fiat, and a lot of people still use it.  I mean, I can think of some arguments a little bit but not enough to articulate them.  If somebody can - I'm all ears. 

Quote

   3. Growth is a part of the social contract. It always has been.

   The best quote Gregory can find to suggest Satoshi wanted small blocks
   is a one sentence hypothetical example about what *might* happen if
   Bitcoin users became "tyrannical" as a result of non-financial transactions
   being stuffed in the block chain. That position makes sense because his
   scaling arguments assuming payment-network-sized traffic and throwing DNS
   systems or whatever into the mix could invalidate those arguments, in the
   absence of merged mining. But Satoshi did invent merged mining, and so
   there's no need for Bitcoin users to get "tyrannical": his original
   arguments still hold.

   4. All the plans for some kind of ultra-throttled Bitcoin network used
   for infrequent transactions neglect to ask where the infrastructure for
   that will come from. The network of exchanges, payment processors and
   startups that are paying people to build infrastructure are all based on
   the assumption that the market will grow significantly. It's a gamble at
   best because Bitcoin's success is not guaranteed, but if the block chain
   cannot grow it's a gamble that is guaranteed to be lost.

   So why should anyone go through the massive hassle of setting up
   exchanges, without the lure of large future profits?


   5. Bitcoin needs users, lots of them, for its political survival. There
   are many people out there who would like to see digital cash disappear, or
   be regulated out of existence. They will argue for that in front of
   governments and courts .... some already are. And if they're going to lose
   those arguments, the political and economic damage of getting rid of
   Bitcoin must be large enough to make people think twice. That means it
   needs supporters, it needs innovative services, it needs companies, and it
   needs legal users making legal payments: as many of them as possible.

   If Bitcoin is a tiny, obscure currency used by drug dealers and a
   handful of crypto-at-any-cost geeks, the cost of simply banning it outright
   will seem trivial and the hammer will drop. There won't be a large scale
   payment network OR a high-value settlement network. And then the world is
   really screwed, because nobody will get a second chance for a very long
   time.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009815.html[/center]


Most actors in the space (exchanges, payment processors, big pool operators) have stated, in a scattershot way over time, that they support a blocksize increase.

Also some well known people like Roger Ver and Andreas Antonopoulos support bigger blocks.


I've seen no evidence that block size correlates to user base, nor that "most actors" support larger blocks.   

Quote

--------------------

Xapo SUPPORTS larger blocks:


“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less."

Coinbase SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Lets plan for success. Coinbase supports increasing the maximum block size http://t.co/JoP4ATw4ux"

Blockchain.info SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"It is time to increase the block size. Agree with @gavinandresen post at http://t.co/G3J6bqgchu 1/2"

BitPay SUPPORTS larger blocks:

"Agreed (but optimistic this will be the last and only time block size needs to increase) http://t.co/o3kMtEkm0x"

Coinkite SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):


“BIP 100 is a reasonable proposal, but it must be implemented by Bitcoin Core and not Bitcoin XT.”

BitPagos SUPPORTS larger blocks (BIP100):

“BitPagos supports the increase in the block size. It is important to maintain the Bitcoin network reliable and its value as a global transfer system."

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114505/web-wallet-providers-divided-over-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase-proposal

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114612/major-payment-processors-in-favor-of-block-size-increase-coinkite-and-bitpagos-prefer-bip-100


So, it looks like a bunch of banks want bigger blocks.  Why?  I'm not sure but it makes me not trust it. 

"Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks."
http://vtscc.org  http://woodcoin.info
meono
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 09:54:57 PM
 #59

snipp...

Or you can just grow up and face reality. Calling all the service that gives Bitcoin fundamental value banks and express your hatred toward them is childish or plain dumb.

Notice all the altcoin pump and dump? They're absolutely worthless unless they got listed on an exchange.... woohoo all the idiots then jump on bandwagon until they got dumped bags of dogshit.

Maybe your shittycoin need to be on a real exchange, just so i can see your twisted face.
funkenstein
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 979


Khazad ai-menu!


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 02:39:10 AM
 #60

snipp...

Or you can just grow up and face reality. Calling all the service that gives Bitcoin fundamental value banks and express your hatred toward them is childish or plain dumb.

Notice all the altcoin pump and dump? They're absolutely worthless unless they got listed on an exchange.... woohoo all the idiots then jump on bandwagon until they got dumped bags of dogshit.

Maybe your shittycoin need to be on a real exchange, just so i can see your twisted face.


What reality do you think I am not facing by asking for an argument to be clearly stated?  And what makes you think I don't like exchanges?   I'm no hater.. I have used two of the services listed there, sure I won't call them banks if that makes you think hatred, to me it doesn't but I guess I can see where that comes from. 

Anyway, sorry if I confused you, my point is that saying "We need everyone to accept bigger blocks because these companies said so" is not good enough for me.   Also saying "we need bigger blocks because more bitcoin users is good" is not good enough for me, as I don't see the relation.

You will also note I am not saying "We need smaller blocks" or "Bigger blocks over my dead body" or even "listen to me I know just what we need".  Instead I'm saying, make a coherent argument please.  Might be asking a lot around here I know but I have high expectations for all y'all. 




 

 

"Give me control over a coin's checkpoints and I care not who mines its blocks."
http://vtscc.org  http://woodcoin.info
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »  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!