Poll: Mike H. Interview - Convincing or not?

[brg444]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

What a despicable individual your are

[tvbcof]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

Who the hell would not want that?

BTW, neither you nor anyone else produced a plausible way in which Blockstream was going to somehow dominate the planet (or even make much money) by developing the technology they are working on and open-sourcing it.  I had a thread dedicated to that purpose and got basically zero bites.  Remember it?  If not I'll dig up a link.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

Who the hell would not want that?

BTW, neither you nor anyone else produced a plausible way in which Blockstream was going to somehow dominate the planet (or even make much money) by developing the technology they are working on and open-sourcing it.  I had a thread dedicated to that purpose and got basically zero bites.  Remember it?  If not I'll dig up a link.

Anything that's not mainchain is unproven at best.  Forestalling a blocksize increase is bad for bitcoin and self serving, and everybody knows it.

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

What a despicable individual your are

Because I disagree with your opinion, I'm a despicable individual?  lolz.  love you too. 

[knight22]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

Who the hell would not want that?

BTW, neither you nor anyone else produced a plausible way in which Blockstream was going to somehow dominate the planet (or even make much money) by developing the technology they are working on and open-sourcing it.  I had a thread dedicated to that purpose and got basically zero bites.  Remember it?  If not I'll dig up a link.

I don't want something that is being forced upon. End of story.

[tvbcof]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

Who the hell would not want that?

BTW, neither you nor anyone else produced a plausible way in which Blockstream was going to somehow dominate the planet (or even make much money) by developing the technology they are working on and open-sourcing it.  I had a thread dedicated to that purpose and got basically zero bites.  Remember it?  If not I'll dig up a link.

Anything that's not mainchain is unproven at best.  Forestalling a blocksize increase is bad for bitcoin and self serving, and everybody knows it.

Wrong again Bob.  As a hodler I believe that I would make more money quicker of we did an infinite block size and handed things over to corp/gov.

I've been obsessed with the data rate and how to mitigate the weaknesses high data rates expose since I first read the whitepaper.  It is not surprising in the least to me to see the people I have the most respect for and trust the most addressing the issues in the same basic way that made sense to me years ago (through subordinate chains.)  I am also delighted that they are going well beyond where my imagination was capable of going and are working on some methods which will trim off many of the rough edges I imagined.

I'm still waiting for an actual plausible mechanism by which Blockstream is going dominate and corrupt the ecosystem, by the way.

[Carlton Banks]

Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

What a despicable individual your are

Because I disagree with your opinion, I'm a despicable individual?  lolz.  love you too.  

I dunno jonald, isn't it actually because you keep inventing fantasy facts, and repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating, repeating

and repeating until it hopefully sticks?



It's not working. Reality exists, unfortunately. Sorry about that.

[jonald_fyookball]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

Who the hell would not want that?

BTW, neither you nor anyone else produced a plausible way in which Blockstream was going to somehow dominate the planet (or even make much money) by developing the technology they are working on and open-sourcing it.  I had a thread dedicated to that purpose and got basically zero bites.  Remember it?  If not I'll dig up a link.

Anything that's not mainchain is unproven at best.  Forestalling a blocksize increase is bad for bitcoin and self serving, and everybody knows it.

Wrong again Bob.  As a hodler I believe that I would make more money quicker of we did an infinite block size and handed things over to corp/gov.

I've been obsessed with the data rate and how to mitigate the weaknesses high data rates expose since I first read the whitepaper.  It is not surprising in the least to me to see the people I have the most respect for and trust the most addressing the issues in the same basic way that made sense to me years ago (through subordinate chains.)  I am also delighted that they are going well beyond where my imagination was capable of going and are working on some methods which will trim off many of the rough edges I imagined.

I'm still waiting for an actual plausible mechanism by which Blockstream is going dominate and corrupt the ecosystem, by the way.

I didn't mean to imply there isn't great potential, but its certainly unproven compared to mainchain, and the stalling is harmful. 

Good for you if you trust blockstream.  I trust that they will do what they think benefits their company the most.

[tvbcof]

...
I'm still waiting for an actual plausible mechanism by which Blockstream is going dominate and corrupt the ecosystem, by the way.

I didn't mean to imply there isn't great potential, but its certainly unproven compared to mainchain, and the stalling is harmful. 

Good for you if you trust blockstream.  I trust that they will do what they think benefits their company the most.

So do I.  What will benefit them the most is a rock solid Bitcoin core upon which to build a properly scaling set of solutions.  This is exactly what I want as well.

[knight22]

 Ironically, I have no real problem with going to 8MB.  I only want to make sure that it happens AFTER a workable scaling mechanism to support 'every frappuccino purchase worldwide' has been fielded and proven.

That's probably exactly what Blockstream wants too.  With of course, their business interests cemented and future profits ensured.

Who the hell would not want that?

BTW, neither you nor anyone else produced a plausible way in which Blockstream was going to somehow dominate the planet (or even make much money) by developing the technology they are working on and open-sourcing it.  I had a thread dedicated to that purpose and got basically zero bites.  Remember it?  If not I'll dig up a link.

Anything that's not mainchain is unproven at best.  Forestalling a blocksize increase is bad for bitcoin and self serving, and everybody knows it.

Wrong again Bob.  As a hodler I believe that I would make more money quicker of we did an infinite block size and handed things over to corp/gov.

I've been obsessed with the data rate and how to mitigate the weaknesses high data rates expose since I first read the whitepaper.  It is not surprising in the least to me to see the people I have the most respect for and trust the most addressing the issues in the same basic way that made sense to me years ago (through subordinate chains.)  I am also delighted that they are going well beyond where my imagination was capable of going and are working on some methods which will trim off many of the rough edges I imagined.

I'm still waiting for an actual plausible mechanism by which Blockstream is going dominate and corrupt the ecosystem, by the way.

I didn't mean to imply there isn't great potential, but its certainly unproven compared to mainchain, and the stalling is harmful.  

Good for you if you trust blockstream.  I trust that they will do what they think benefits their company the most.

People say the block size increase is a threat to centralization and falsely accuse me of pushing for a corporate takeover but don't give a damn about a single CORPORATION taking absolute control over bitcoin development.

How can it be more pathetically contradictory?

[jonald_fyookball]

...
I'm still waiting for an actual plausible mechanism by which Blockstream is going dominate and corrupt the ecosystem, by the way.

I didn't mean to imply there isn't great potential, but its certainly unproven compared to mainchain, and the stalling is harmful. 

Good for you if you trust blockstream.  I trust that they will do what they think benefits their company the most.

So do I.  What will benefit them the most is a rock solid Bitcoin core upon which to build a properly scaling set of solutions.  This is exactly what I want as well.

Well, I guess we should agree to disagree that there is a conflict of interest then.

I'll just quote what I said in another thread and leave it at that.

Blockstream is in the business of off-chain scaling.  Probably both mainchain and offchain scaling is required for Bitcoin.
You can't expect those core devs to be objective.  Because of their business interests, they are going to be slightly to strongly biased
against mainchain scaling, even if that is not in the best interests of the larger community.

[tvbcof]

People say the block size increase is a threat to centralization and falsely accuse me of pushing for a corporate takeover but don't give a damn about a single CORPORATION taking absolute control over bitcoin development.

How can it be more pathetically contradictory?

I think that most people consider you to be a totally lost and outclassed imbecile and are neither surprised nor very interested in what might be going on inside your cranium.

/gratuitous ad hominem

BTW, I do 'give a damn about a single corporation taking absolute control over Bitcoin development.'  That's one difference I have with you and yours.

[knight22]

People say the block size increase is a threat to centralization and falsely accuse me of pushing for a corporate takeover but don't give a damn about a single CORPORATION taking absolute control over bitcoin development.

How can it be more pathetically contradictory?

I think that most people consider you to be a totally lost and outclassed imbecile and are neither surprised nor very interested in what might be going on inside your cranium.

/gratuitous ad hominem

BTW, I do 'give a damn about a single corporation taking absolute control over Bitcoin development.'  That's one difference I have with you and yours.

Such an enlightening answer  

I didn't expect much from you anyway.

[jonald_fyookball]

People say the block size increase is a threat to centralization and falsely accuse me of pushing for a corporate takeover but don't give a damn about a single CORPORATION taking absolute control over bitcoin development.

How can it be more pathetically contradictory?

I think that most people consider you to be a totally lost and outclassed imbecile and are neither surprised nor very interested in what might be going on inside your cranium.

/gratuitous ad hominem

BTW, I do 'give a damn about a single corporation taking absolute control over Bitcoin development.'  That's one difference I have with you and yours.

Such an enlightening answer  

I didn't expect much from you anyway.

You have to admit, "totally lost and outclassed imbecile" was some nice colorful languaging.

[knight22]

People say the block size increase is a threat to centralization and falsely accuse me of pushing for a corporate takeover but don't give a damn about a single CORPORATION taking absolute control over bitcoin development.

How can it be more pathetically contradictory?

I think that most people consider you to be a totally lost and outclassed imbecile and are neither surprised nor very interested in what might be going on inside your cranium.

/gratuitous ad hominem

BTW, I do 'give a damn about a single corporation taking absolute control over Bitcoin development.'  That's one difference I have with you and yours.

Such an enlightening answer  

I didn't expect much from you anyway.

You have to admit, "totally lost and outclassed imbecile" was some nice colorful languaging.

Right, I couldn't came up with such creativity 

[tvbcof]

People say the block size increase is a threat to centralization and falsely accuse me of pushing for a corporate takeover but don't give a damn about a single CORPORATION taking absolute control over bitcoin development.

How can it be more pathetically contradictory?

I think that most people consider you to be a totally lost and outclassed imbecile and are neither surprised nor very interested in what might be going on inside your cranium.

/gratuitous ad hominem

BTW, I do 'give a damn about a single corporation taking absolute control over Bitcoin development.'  That's one difference I have with you and yours.

Such an enlightening answer  

I didn't expect much from you anyway.

You have to admit, "totally lost and outclassed imbecile" was some nice colorful languaging.

Right, I couldn't came up with such creativity 

I admit that I had to go to the net to find the word 'gratuitous'.  I had one of those things where I could not think of the word but I knew exactly what I wanted.

[coalitionfor8mb]

What a nice, peaceful and colorful discussion here!

if we wait just a little longer, it won't be necessary to scale because network growth will enter a reversal.

It would seem that temporary reversals in the network "data rate" growth are necessary steps intended to keep the validation costs sustainable (within a certain corridor) over the decades to come. We will have to accept whatever other effects come from it in order to preserve this one fundamental attribute of the system.

As long as the block size remains such that the blockchain can be passed along on a single and affordable consumer-grade storage device, I'm mostly happy.

I've been obsessed with the data rate and how to mitigate the weaknesses high data rates expose since I first read the whitepaper.

I agree with this, though I would consider the "data rate" to be more vulnerable characteristic of the network than "storage costs", due to the fact that some ISPs might (and do) impose "total bandwidth caps per month" limitations having direct impact on running a full node continuously, while storage devices can be accumulated without any limit.

Regarding the Blockstream and subordinate chains I would give them a benefit of a doubt, simply because I haven't been following the developments there and cannot properly assess the proposals on their technical merit at the moment. On the other hand, if the protocol begins "endorsing" the accumulation of unlimited amounts of bitcoins in third-party services (subordinate chains), while the bandwidth in the main chain remains limited and the costs high, the situation might produce what I call systemic risks and can severely shatter the trust for the whole solution.

I think, Paul Sztorc mentioned in his "Measuring Decentralization" article something about custodial periods of about a week for bitcoins to be locked to a particular side chain, maybe that would work or maybe it will become cost prohibitive, hard to predict at the moment. But regardless of the above, it's pretty clear that the main chain needs to remain sustainable (cost-wise) over the long periods of time and we have to accept whatever other effects this particular attribute brings.