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

[RoadTrain]

Company X has plan B and we need to modify the current consensus rules in order to accommodate them! What could go wrong?

Every companies work like that. Keeping the blocks small is a good way to keep investments in the space away and ensure bitcoin to be a commercial failure. Don't fool yourself though, another system will give what companies need (either a fork or an altcoin) AKA growth predictability leaving bitcoin behind in term of value proposition.

Unless this another system is as censorship-resistant as Bitcoin (seems unlikely), I don't give a shit.

Scaling =! being less censorship resistant. I don't understand your point.

You know, that's the whole point, that's the main reason of the ongoing debate. And it remains to be seen who of us is right.

BTW, scaling != large blocks. Large blocks are one of the ways, and you are aware of that.

[1715430059]

1715430059

[1715430059]

1715430059

[1715430059]

1715430059

[adamstgBit]

Company X has plan B and we need to modify the current consensus rules in order to accommodate them! What could go wrong?

Every companies work like that. Keeping the blocks small is a good way to keep investments in the space away and ensure bitcoin to be a commercial failure. Don't fool yourself though, another system will give what companies need (either a fork or an altcoin) AKA growth predictability leaving bitcoin behind in term of value proposition.

Unless this another system is as censorship-resistant as Bitcoin (seems unlikely), I don't give a shit.

Scaling =! being less censorship resistant. I don't understand your point.

You know, that's the whole point, that's the main reason of the ongoing debate. And it remains to be seen who of us is right.

BTW, scaling != large blocks. Large blocks are one of the ways, and you are aware of that.

scaling != more TX

DUH

[yayayo]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

[knight22]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

[yayayo]

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

Worldwide public infrastructure (network upload capacity) is not build only to suit Bitcoin. Exceeding technical limits will make it impossible for private individuals to run full nodes. This will lead to a further decline in node count and hence increase centralization to a limited number of full nodes run by corporations that will reduce network security and open the doors to blacklisting, surveillance and ultimately loss of full private ownership rights.

People that want another Paypal should just stick to the original.

ya.ya.yo!

[adamstgBit]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

it almost make 0 sense when talking about 8MB blocks, NO ONE not even china will have a problem downloading 8 retarted MegaBytes.

i've fucking had it with these smallblockist  nonsense arguments

[adamstgBit]

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions.  

Worldwide public infrastructure (network upload capacity) is not build only to suit Bitcoin. Exceeding technical limits will make it impossible for private individuals to run full nodes. This will lead to a further decline in node count and hence increase centralization to a limited number of full nodes run by corporations that will reduce network security and open the doors to blacklisting, surveillance and ultimately loss of full private ownership rights.

People that want another Paypal should just stick to the original.

ya.ya.yo!

now go tell Call of Duty devs they should make games that work on a 486 so they reach a wider audience

>1MB blocks = "Exceeding technical limits"

[coalitionfor8mb]

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions.  

Worldwide public infrastructure (network upload capacity) is not build only to suit Bitcoin. Exceeding technical limits will make it impossible for private individuals to run full nodes. This will lead to a further decline in node count and hence increase centralization to a limited number of full nodes run by corporations that will reduce network security and open the doors to blacklisting, surveillance and ultimately loss of full private ownership rights.

People that want another Paypal should just stick to the original.

ya.ya.yo!

I will just put it here to define a fairly large perimeter of where the truth is hiding...

Bitcoin was created as a "single PoW-secured transparent unified ledger runnable by users at home".
For as long as it's allowed to grow in order to keep filling its niche, while maintaining the definition above, it will be fine.

We might indeed need some testing of larger blocks (closer to 8MB) before fully committing to agree on the new limit, but once we do (agree), we must stick to it with proper discipline in order for it to solidify and have an effect in protecting the network.

[RoadTrain]

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

It seems like you are implying that actual decentralization is in best interests of the free market. I can't see any reliable foundation for this assumption.

Is it true that the same free market has resulted in increasing mining centralization, that could only be slowed by hard work in performance optimizations done by core devs and others? Are core devs a part of the free market?

I'm not making an argument, just asking.

[BillyBobZorton]

Big blocks without being sure that nodes will be able to be ran by average joe computers out there = it's just bye bye for Bitcoin.
Thats why it's just a big deal. But obviously, staying the way we are now also gives us the problem of being stuck in terms of development to meet certain goals.
As of right now I don't see a solution that will keep everyone happy.

[Hydrogen]

Discussion about block sizes is like people arguing over Y2K or IPv4 vs IPv6.

Its not rocket science.  Potential for dire consequences are vastly exaggerated.  And the majority of those talking about it don't know enough about basic crypto currency fundamentals to understand its not an important topic due to bitcoin's framework being designed from the ground up to be scalable and extensible if necessary.

Might as well argue over what color the sky is, it makes about as much sense.

[Holliday]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. 

it almost make 0 sense when talking about 8MB blocks, NO ONE not even china will have a problem downloading 8 retarted MegaBytes.

i've fucking had it with these smallblockist  nonsense arguments

Do those of you arguing for a removal (or increase in size) of the 1 mb anti-spam limit even run a full node? (Adam, it's pretty clear from your comments that you most certainly do not.)

Has the spam problem been solved? Including all the spam in the permanent record that we (those of us who care about decentralization) all have to maintain forever isn't a solution.

I've been running a full node for several years now. I used to argue how easy it was. It used to be something I was comfortable doing with my daily use computer. At some point, I had to switch to dedicated hardware because of the resources the software was using. Then I had to limit the maximum amount of connections to my node because it was eating so much bandwidth that I couldn't even surf the web properly (hundreds of gigabytes per month). I have modern computers with lots of RAM and fast SSDs. My internet speeds are some of the fastest available for home users. Yet, running a Bitcoin node is no longer something I would consider "easy". This is all with the 1mb anti-spam measure in place!

Are you seriously going to try and convince me that an 8x increase in block size limit is no big deal? I'm sure if you build it, they will come. If the limit is increased, transactions will increase (that's what this thread is suggesting after all). More transactions and larger blocks will significantly affect how easy (or difficult) it is to run a full node. I'm a Bitcoin enthusiast. I've been somewhat of a Bitcoin cheerleader for years now. I'm certain that if we simply increase the amount of information that needs to be shared on the p2p network, I will no longer be able to effectively run a full node.

If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself is questioning my ability to effectively run a full node in the face of increasing block sizes, you can bet your ass that is going to have an impact on decentralization.

You can go ahead and call that nonsense if you want.

[adamstgBit]

jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown

Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies.

It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now.

Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions.  

it almost make 0 sense when talking about 8MB blocks, NO ONE not even china will have a problem downloading 8 retarted MegaBytes.

i've fucking had it with these smallblockist  nonsense arguments

Do those of you arguing for a removal (or increase in size) of the 1 mb anti-spam limit even run a full node? (Adam, it's pretty clear from your comments that you most certainly do not.)

Has the spam problem been solved? Including all the spam in the permanent record that we (those of us who care about decentralization) all have to maintain forever isn't a solution.

I've been running a full node for several years now. I used to argue how easy it was. It used to be something I was comfortable doing with my daily use computer. At some point, I had to switch to dedicated hardware because of the resources the software was using. Then I had to limit the maximum amount of connections to my node because it was eating so much bandwidth that I couldn't even surf the web properly (hundreds of gigabytes per month). I have modern computers with lots of RAM and fast SSDs. My internet speeds are some of the fastest available for home users. Yet, running a Bitcoin node is no longer something I would consider "easy". This is all with the 1mb anti-spam measure in place!

Are you seriously going to try and convince me that an 8x increase in block size limit is no big deal? I'm sure if you build it, they will come. If the limit is increased, transactions will increase (that's what this thread is suggesting after all). More transactions and larger blocks will significantly affect how easy (or difficult) it is to run a full node. I'm a Bitcoin enthusiast. I've been somewhat of a Bitcoin cheerleader for years now. I'm certain that if we simply increase the amount of information that needs to be shared on the p2p network, I will no longer be able to effectively run a full node.

If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself is questioning my ability to effectively run a full node in the face of increasing block sizes, you can bet your ass that is going to have an impact on decentralization.

You can go ahead and call that nonsense if you want.

no i don't run a full node i stopped a long time ago.

but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower.

maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.

[adamstgBit]

running a full node noe  

fuck that was easy

[Holliday]

but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower.

It isn't that simple Adam. I'm supposed to share this information (along with the rest of the block chain) with my peers. That's the point of the peer to peer network. With default settings my node sends (not even including data received) hundreds of gigabytes per month. I have to limit connections to less than a fifth of default to keep my internet functioning at a point where no one in the household complains. Again, I have modern computers with multi core processors and top tier home internet speeds.

Maybe I'm just unlucky and someone out there is using my node to re-download the entire chain every other day!

Let's see some improvements in QoS (in the Bitcoin software itself) without me needing to be a network admin before we just takes the training wheels off, ehh?

maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.

Run it for just a month with near 100% uptime, then get back to me.

[adamstgBit]

but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower.

It isn't that simple Adam. I'm supposed to share this information (along with the rest of the block chain) with my peers. That's the point of the peer to peer network. With default settings my node sends (not even including data received) hundreds of gigabytes per month. I have to limit connections to less than a fifth of default to keep my internet functioning at a point where no one in the household complains. Again, I have modern computers with multi core processors and top tier home internet speeds.

Maybe I'm just unlucky and someone out there is using my node to re-download the entire chain every other day!

Let's see some improvements in QoS (in the Bitcoin software itself) without me needing to be a network admin before we just takes the training wheels off, ehh?

maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.

Run it for just a month with near 100% uptime, then get back to me.

all kinds of improvements should be made... there should be different levels of "full nodes" obviously someone might want to only realy TX to a few peers and someone else might want to be a "SuperNode" connecting to 100's of peers.

this is going to take a while to sycn up i'm over a year behind. 

[Chris_Sabian]

Company X has plan B and we need to modify the current consensus rules in order to accommodate them! What could go wrong?

Well, the 1 mb block size limit is going to be a problem in a near term.  Why not address it now and find a solution to the problem now?  There needs to be some kind of scaling in the block size so that in 4-5years, this same problem doesn't occur again.

[adamstgBit]

is it normal bitcoin-qt is eating up like 90% of my CPU?

[Holliday]

is it normal bitcoin-qt is eating up like 90% of my CPU?

While syncing the chain, yes.

[knight22]

but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower.

It isn't that simple Adam. I'm supposed to share this information (along with the rest of the block chain) with my peers. That's the point of the peer to peer network. With default settings my node sends (not even including data received) hundreds of gigabytes per month. I have to limit connections to less than a fifth of default to keep my internet functioning at a point where no one in the household complains. Again, I have modern computers with multi core processors and top tier home internet speeds.

Maybe I'm just unlucky and someone out there is using my node to re-download the entire chain every other day!

Let's see some improvements in QoS (in the Bitcoin software itself) without me needing to be a network admin before we just takes the training wheels off, ehh?

maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.

Run it for just a month with near 100% uptime, then get back to me.

all kinds of improvements should be made... there should be different levels of "full nodes" obviously someone might want to only realy TX to a few peers and someone else might want to be a "SuperNode" connecting to 100's of peers.

this is going to take a while to sycn up i'm over a year behind. 

Isn't the point of pruned node?