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

[LiteCoinGuy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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



-----------

Also read:

https://medium.com/@OB1Company/scaling-bitcoin-9366988972b6

----------

Another good talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=26m30s

[1714633748]

1714633748

[1714633748]

1714633748

[1714633748]

1714633748

[1714633748]

1714633748

[1714633748]

1714633748

[fairglu]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

If they have such high throughput needs, why use bitcoin in the first place and not create their own altcoin?

They could have it merge-mined or secured by regular checkpoints stored in the BTC blockchain instead, using BTC just for security rather than using it as a storage network.

Basic question being why should a common shared blockchain become the one every single company with massive upscaling plans needs to be in?

For full scale, blocks would need to be in the GB range, today, and tens of GB with tech growth in the future, which would completely change the nature of bitcoin.

[meono]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

If they have such high throughput needs, why use bitcoin in the first place and not create their own altcoin?

They could have it merge-mined or secured by regular checkpoints stored in the BTC blockchain instead, using BTC just for security rather than using it as a storage network.

Basic question being why should a common shared blockchain become the one every single company with massive upscaling plans needs to be in?

For full scale, blocks would need to be in the GB range, today, and tens of GB with tech growth in the future, which would completely change the nature of bitcoin.

dump fuck, create their own coins? are you this fucking stupid?

[Elwar]

[tsoPANos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and
centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that
our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people
on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.
Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own?
Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin.

[BitcoiNaked]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and
centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that
our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people
on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.
Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own?
Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin.

So hhow do we solve this shit, making blocks bigger has an issue, leaving blocks small has an issue, seems to me that bitcoin has just a flaw and fkin satoshi who is hiding himself failed.

[brg444]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and
centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that
our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people
on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.
Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own?
Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin.

So hhow do we solve this shit, making blocks bigger has an issue, leaving blocks small has an issue, seems to me that bitcoin has just a flaw and fkin satoshi who is hiding himself failed.

If you think you have valuable input and not only stupid stuff to say you might want to consider:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/

[Patejl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

We are not responsible for your inability to understand fundamental facts about bitcoin scalability issues and
centralization. It seems that you keep supporting bigger blocks. For the last time, please understand that
our hardware is not capable of handling bigger blocks. This will be devastating for bitcoin, and will turn many people
on altcoins, which they have the same scalability issues or even worse.
Ohh wait! How convenient! Your nickname looks self-explanatory. LiteCoinGuy, how many litecoins do you own?
Well not everyone is invested in LiteCoin, which is just a copy of bitcoin, and 2.5 minute blocks make it even harder to scale compared to bitcoin.

So hhow do we solve this shit, making blocks bigger has an issue, leaving blocks small has an issue, seems to me that bitcoin has just a flaw and fkin satoshi who is hiding himself failed.

Everything has its advantages and its limits, doesn't mean we should stop using something just because it has some limits. Its not just bitcoin can't handle many transactions so keep making it bigger, personally I'm against this whole XT thing but probably BIP 101 would be a good idea so probably a biased opinion here, you can adjust yourself as well.
Lastly, I'm going with this guy until someone can prove his opinion to be better or cross out the possibility of this idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

If they have such high throughput needs, why use bitcoin in the first place and not create their own altcoin?

They could have it merge-mined or secured by regular checkpoints stored in the BTC blockchain instead, using BTC just for security rather than using it as a storage network.

Basic question being why should a common shared blockchain become the one every single company with massive upscaling plans needs to be in?

For full scale, blocks would need to be in the GB range, today, and tens of GB with tech growth in the future, which would completely change the nature of bitcoin.

[killerjoegreece]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

thanks for the video. it makes clear that capacity of the network now is not enough

[coalitionfor8mb]

When I asked the (Uni)Verse, what the true path of Bitcoin was, All She Wrote was that it Can't Be Touched.

But we can always approximate it.

[spazzdla]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&feature=youtu.be&t=12667

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

If they have such high throughput needs, why use bitcoin in the first place and not create their own altcoin?

They could have it merge-mined or secured by regular checkpoints stored in the BTC blockchain instead, using BTC just for security rather than using it as a storage network.

Basic question being why should a common shared blockchain become the one every single company with massive upscaling plans needs to be in?

For full scale, blocks would need to be in the GB range, today, and tens of GB with tech growth in the future, which would completely change the nature of bitcoin.

dump fuck, create their own coins? are you this fucking stupid?

Creating a sidechain coin is a good idea...

[Mickeyb]

The longer this debate goes on the clearer is to me that we will have to choose a solution, live with it and know that's not perfect. Either we will raise blocks or make scheduled raising of blocks and centralize Bitcoin a bit more.

Or we will leave the blocks like this and in this way raise the fees considerably and even risk to drop some small transactions of the network. In this way we may hinder adoption as well.

We will just have to decide in the end and live with this decision. Or just hope that someone will come out with some miracle solution that we don't see at the moment.

[Kprawn]

The solution is there.... someone just need to make some sacrifices and only implement the stuff that is needed. {block size increase} The rest of the garbage just need to

be dropped and everything will be fine. We have a bunch of people doing a polite dance, much like the mating ritual in animals... where the goal is defined, but the rules of who

will be doing the f#%^ing are not defined yet. The result of this "dance" will determine who will be screwed and by the looks of it, it seems to be the Bitcoin users. 

[knight22]

Small blocksistan people want to push bitcoin into irrelevance and commercial failure. This must be good for bitcoin!

[fairglu]

Tragedy of the commons.

A situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource.

[Holliday]

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

[knight22]

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.

[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.

[knight22]

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.

[coalitionfor8mb]

A situation where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each's self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource.

Exactly!
You are reading my thoughts.