Thanks to people who support 1-2 MB blocks - great idea u fools...

[adamstgBit]

point is a home node having 60+ peers is nutty

Well... my goal was to share information with whomever asked for it without abusing the offer. Apparently that's crazy!

it is!

you're probably forwarding TX's to all your peers most of whom probably already received those TX datas from the other 60+peers Their connected to.

and that sir is called resilience by redundancy

The only thing that needs redundancy is the blockchain. Broadcasting the same transaction twice is called inefficiencies.

Welp! Should've told Satoshi heh  

Seriously who do you think you noobs are giving engineering lessons to people when you are most clueless about how the system operates.  

Then go on and explain how broadcasting the same transaction twice increase resilience instead of making pointless post.  

Well first you'll have to explain where do you get the idea that transactions are broadcasted twice?

there actually broadcasted many times as they hop from one node to the other

do you even know how bitcoin works?    

[1714638030]

1714638030

[1714638030]

1714638030

[1714638030]

1714638030

[adamstgBit]

jesus christ is it so hard to believe bitcoin version 1 wasn't the most optimal piece of software in the world?

[brg444]

point is a home node having 60+ peers is nutty

Well... my goal was to share information with whomever asked for it without abusing the offer. Apparently that's crazy!

it is!

you're probably forwarding TX's to all your peers most of whom probably already received those TX datas from the other 60+peers Their connected to.

and that sir is called resilience by redundancy

The only thing that needs redundancy is the blockchain. Broadcasting the same transaction twice is called inefficiencies.

Welp! Should've told Satoshi heh  

Seriously who do you think you noobs are giving engineering lessons to people when you are most clueless about how the system operates.  

Then go on and explain how broadcasting the same transaction twice increase resilience instead of making pointless post.  

Well first you'll have to explain where do you get the idea that transactions are broadcasted twice?

there actually broadcasted many times as they hop from one node to the other

do you even know how bitcoin works?    

They're broadcasted once by every node to all of their peers until everyone acknowledges its existence.  

[brg444]

jesus christ is it so hard to believe bitcoin version 1 wasn't the most optimal piece of software in the world?

You are not qualified to judge this  

[adamstgBit]

jesus christ is it so hard to believe bitcoin version 1 wasn't the most optimal piece of software in the world?

You are not qualified to judge this  

actually i am, we all are.

which is why bitcoin will improve or die.

because i WILL move on to something I JUDGE better, if bitcoin can't deliver. and everyone else will do the same thing, because blieve it or not, you don't need to be a cook to have taste buds.

[brg444]

jesus christ is it so hard to believe bitcoin version 1 wasn't the most optimal piece of software in the world?

You are not qualified to judge this 

actually i am, we all are.

which is why bitcoin will improve or die.

because i WILL move on to somthing I JUDGE better, if bitcoin can't deliver.

What you're essentially suggesting is to completely redesign Bitcoin's network topology and protocol to favor a more centralized design.

For the sake of what remains of your reputation you might want to avoid shouting this idea from the top of every roofs.

Your decision is irrelevant.

[adamstgBit]

seems legit. 

[adamstgBit]

we should make a new thread about this network topology stuff, and have hours of fun arguing about the most optimal design, while ignoring brg444's trollery that we are wasting our time.   

[brg444]

we should make a new thread about this network topology stuff, and have hours of fun arguing about the most optimal design, while ignoring brg444's trollery that we are wasting our time.  

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/

Go right ahead, I'm grabbing popcorn.

What is this disease you people suffer from that you need to fix everything that's not broken. 

[brg444]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

[coalitionfor8mb]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

[brg444]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

How about no? You can go ahead and create EvolutionCoin but you can't and won't have Bitcoin.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

How about no? You can go ahead and create EvolutionCoin but you can't and won't have Bitcoin.

Haha!

Nothing in the Universe is static. Bitcoin has never been effectively capped either.
Keep it at 1MB forever and it will wither and shrink or mutate into sidechains that would then tear it apart anyway.

Remember, the true path of Bitcoin isn't ambiguous.
Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.

[brg444]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

How about no? You can go ahead and create EvolutionCoin but you can't and won't have Bitcoin.

Haha!

Nothing in the Universe is static. Bitcoin has never been effectively capped either.
Keep it at 1MB forever and it will wither and die or mutate into sidechains that would then tear it apart anyway.

Remember, the true path of Bitcoin isn't ambiguous.
Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.

A protocol like Bitcoin will eventually become static and sort of ossify once it is considered good enough. The evolution will come from additional layers.

Bitcoin is the cambrian explosion but its blockchain alone will never support the whole financial system.

[knight22]

point is a home node having 60+ peers is nutty

Well... my goal was to share information with whomever asked for it without abusing the offer. Apparently that's crazy!

it is!

you're probably forwarding TX's to all your peers most of whom probably already received those TX datas from the other 60+peers Their connected to.

and that sir is called resilience by redundancy

The only thing that needs redundancy is the blockchain. Broadcasting the same transaction twice is called inefficiencies.

Welp! Should've told Satoshi heh  

Seriously who do you think you noobs are giving engineering lessons to people when you are most clueless about how the system operates.  

Then go on and explain how broadcasting the same transaction twice increase resilience instead of making pointless post. 

Well first you'll have to explain where do you get the idea that transactions are broadcasted twice?

Sorry I should add this precision: Broadcasting a transaction to a node that has already received this transaction.

In other word, inefficiencies.

[knight22]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

How about no? You can go ahead and create EvolutionCoin but you can't and won't have Bitcoin.

Haha!

Nothing in the Universe is static. Bitcoin has never been effectively capped either.
Keep it at 1MB forever and it will wither and die or mutate into sidechains that would then tear it apart anyway.

Remember, the true path of Bitcoin isn't ambiguous.
Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.

A protocol like Bitcoin will eventually become static and sort of ossify once it is considered good enough. The evolution will come from additional layers.

Bitcoin is the cambrian explosion but its blockchain alone will never support the whole financial system.

I agree that it would be ideal but the protocol needs to consider growth and technological improvement which are hard to forecast. The ability to fork at this point is still required as bitcoin is not a mature protocol yet.  

[RoadTrain]

Sorry I should add this precision: Broadcasting a transaction to a node that has already received this transaction.

In other word, inefficiencies.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean that if a node sees a new transaction or block, it immediately relays it to other peers?
As far as I'm aware that's not quite true. The only thing a node does when receiving new tx/block is send an inv message containing its hash. After that, a peer can request a tx/block using a getdata message if it doesn't already have it.

[neonshium]

Sorry I should add this precision: Broadcasting a transaction to a node that has already received this transaction.

In other word, inefficiencies.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean that if a node sees a new transaction or block, it immediately relays it to other peers?
As far as I'm aware that's not quite true. The only thing a node does when receiving new tx/block is send an inv message containing its hash. After that, a peer can request a tx/block using a getdata message if it doesn't already have it.

That's true. Relaying not just the transactions related messages alone. It would look up for the sources so that it double virtually double confirm the transactions as well as the bitcoins.

[coalitionfor8mb]

A protocol like Bitcoin will eventually become static and sort of ossify once it is considered good enough. The evolution will come from additional layers.

Bitcoin is the cambrian explosion but its blockchain alone will never support the whole financial system.

I'm not saying that it will, but whatever level this technology is capable of achieving, it should go there.
We might still want to sit at 1MB for a while in order to accumulate enough mass and build up enough pressure.

But when it's time, (G)o fo(R) (8)MB and everything will be GR8. 

[LiteCoinGuy]

Allow Nick Szabo to explain it to you:

Compared to existing financial IT, Satoshi made radical trade-offs in favor of security and against performance. The seemingly wasteful process of mining is the most obvious of these trade-offs, but it also makes others. Among them is that it requires high redundancy in its messaging. Mathematically provable integrity would require full broadcast between all nodes. Bitcoin can’t achieve that, but to even get anywhere close to a good approximation of it requires a very high level of redundancy. So a 1MB block takes vastly more resources than a 1MB web page, for example, because it has to be transmitted, processed and stored with such high redundancy for Bitcoin to achieve its automated integrity.”

I will say it again, that Bitcoin is the only network of its kind that has saturated the level of home-based internet infrastructure to the point that it can now move onto the next stage of its evolution (8MB), while the niche it used to cover can be served by its closest PoW competitor, which has exact same properties except for smaller market cap, while being at the time more convenient to operate at home.

Satoshi has always intended to increase the limit and even provided a small code-snippet demonstrating how to do it.

How about no? You can go ahead and create EvolutionCoin but you can't and won't have Bitcoin.

Haha!

Nothing in the Universe is static. Bitcoin has never been effectively capped either.
Keep it at 1MB forever and it will wither and die or mutate into sidechains that would then tear it apart anyway.

Remember, the true path of Bitcoin isn't ambiguous.
Sometimes things need to change in order to stay the same.

A protocol like Bitcoin will eventually become static and sort of ossify once it is considered good enough. The evolution will come from additional layers.

Bitcoin is the cambrian explosion but its blockchain alone will never support the whole financial system.

i agree that it will be static at some point but not at this stage and not with artificial 1 MB blocks.