Blockstream is scum

[mikewirth]

I hate Blockstream for blocking with DDOS and censorship the possibility of > 1 MB blocks just so their system can become more valuable and make them lots of money as they tax the onramps (via sidechains) to the blockchain.  Fuck them.  Hope they die soon.

But, I do think there is one good argument for small blocks.  A blockchain cancer is Satoshi Dice.  Other schemes which pump the chain full of meaningless transactions are equally harmful.  If we have 1MB limits, transaction might soon cost $.30 - or more.  This would eliminate Satoshi Dice and other bullshit.  If your transaction is worth something, welcome to the blockchain, if not, gut fucked buddy - spam not welcome here.  So, maybe 1MB limit is better.  Maybe paying $.50/transaction is a good idea. 

[lolgato]

No just no the reason i use btc is because of low transaction fees.This is what makes it good in my books making it. 50 cents I best as well use paypal . Even if it's spamming the block stream it's not your call whether or not it will change 

[unamis76]

I haven't heard anything that they're actively blocking/censoring the > 1MB block possibility, could you link us to that? As far as I know they just have a proposal they consider better, thus they're in disagreement with bigger blocks.

As for small blocks... Why is Satoshi Dice spam? What makes them spam? They're legitimate transactions on the blockchain with legitimate use. Unlike, as an example, those excessive stress tests we've seen that have shown us things that we already knew... Paying more for a transaction is not a good idea: for that we have regular/traditional banking systems.

[pedrog]

Isn't Satoshi Dice responsible for like 50% of all time miner's fees?

Using bitcoin for gambling is not spam, using bitcoin is actually a good thing and it's what makes bitcoin valuable.

The network is congested and there seems to be no way to get it fixed, transactions take a lot of time or they're expensive, two major bitcoin's sales pitch no longer exist.

[Magnesium Coin]

...  A blockchain cancer is Satoshi Dice.  Other schemes which pump the chain full of meaningless transactions are equally harmful.  If we have 1MB limits, transaction might soon cost $.30 - or more.  This would eliminate Satoshi Dice and other bullshit.  If your transaction is worth something, welcome to the blockchain, if not, gut fucked buddy - spam not welcome here.  So, maybe 1MB limit is better.  Maybe paying $.50/transaction is a good idea. 

Yes! That's a good point. +1 on that.

Actually, there are certain "instant-paying" gambling site (viz; Satoshi Dice, LuckyBit) which even pays out 0.0001 BTC to winners.

These abuses on Blockchain should ignored or use high fees in order to penalize their system.

I think they should adopt creating a temporary wallet for users (like Primedice) and should impose a threshold level for withdrawing.

[Viscore]

I haven't heard anything that they're actively blocking/censoring the > 1MB block possibility, could you link us to that? As far as I know they just have a proposal they consider better, thus they're in disagreement with bigger blocks.

One member of the core team is from blockstream. So the OP might think he is the one of many in the core team to block larger size.

[calkob]

High transactions fees would kill bitcoin, the fact that people can send value for cents is a pro for bitcoin

[Amadues]

High transactions fees would kill bitcoin, the fact that people can send value for cents is a pro for bitcoin

yes because improve democratically the possibility to make a transaction.
In a development country send a tx paying a couple of cents is a strong value to save money for other things.
also for betting site (like direct bet) the possibility to avoid a wallet in their site and make "anonymous" bet it's a strong condition in favor of players,
because no account means no "frozen" credit, no KYC endless, and so on...

[thejaytiesto]

Isn't Satoshi Dice responsible for like 50% of all time miner's fees?

Using bitcoin for gambling is not spam, using bitcoin is actually a good thing and it's what makes bitcoin valuable.

The network is congested and there seems to be no way to get it fixed, transactions take a lot of time or they're expensive, two major bitcoin's sales pitch no longer exist.

Bitcoin gambling is one of the awesome selling points for Bitcoin. The fact that you can start gambling your money instantly, without needing to register anywhere, and with any amounts ranging from the tiny to millions of dollars if you wanted, makes Bitcoin a really attractive gambling platform. Op is I think missing the point with blockstream, and making a conspiracy theory about DDOSing stuff.

[pereira4]

Blockstream is doing a great work in trying to scale Bitcoin to global levels without the tradeoff of big blocks that would make Bitcoin extremely centralized as the nodes wouldn't be able to ran by everyday people. Scum are the ones that want big blocks so Bitcoin becomes controlled by Google and other datacenters.

[maku]

Blockstream is doing a great work in trying to scale Bitcoin to global levels without the tradeoff of big blocks that would make Bitcoin extremely centralized as the nodes wouldn't be able to ran by everyday people. Scum are the ones that want big blocks so Bitcoin becomes controlled by Google and other datacenters.

Isn't that the inevitable future? Eventually we will have block size increase no matter what, it is not question of the type: 'if', but rather 'when'.
I know bitcoin is not ready for it now and current network capacity is rather capable, but bitcoin is still growing.

[Amph]

Blockstream is doing a great work in trying to scale Bitcoin to global levels without the tradeoff of big blocks that would make Bitcoin extremely centralized as the nodes wouldn't be able to ran by everyday people. Scum are the ones that want big blocks so Bitcoin becomes controlled by Google and other datacenters.

there is no real centralized as controlled by a single man, farm right now, despite what everyone think, and in the future also, are still very decentralized, especially because there will be also the electricity limit per zone

also nodes nowadays does not count anything, and they are already very limited, only few people run a full node

[brg444]

there is no real centralized as controlled by a single man, farm right now, despite what everyone think, and in the future also, are still very decentralized, especially because there will be also the electricity limit per zone

Mining farm?

Bitfury... KnC... 21co

also nodes nowadays does not count anything, and they are already very limited, only few people run a full node

 

[Amph]

there is no real centralized as controlled by a single man, farm right now, despite what everyone think, and in the future also, are still very decentralized, especially because there will be also the electricity limit per zone

Mining farm?

Bitfury... KnC... 21co

yes but they are not centralized as if they were controlled by a single entity, unless they deliberately point at one pool

even chinese, which control 60%, they control it with different pool and different farm, in the remote case that right now the whole network would be under chinese at 100%, would still be considered decentralized

i would call centralized when a single farm will own 51% of the network

[Mickeyb]

Blockstream is doing a great work in trying to scale Bitcoin to global levels without the tradeoff of big blocks that would make Bitcoin extremely centralized as the nodes wouldn't be able to ran by everyday people. Scum are the ones that want big blocks so Bitcoin becomes controlled by Google and other datacenters.

Isn't that the inevitable future? Eventually we will have block size increase no matter what, it is not question of the type: 'if', but rather 'when'.
I know bitcoin is not ready for it now and current network capacity is rather capable, but bitcoin is still growing.

Well if we want to achieve the growth that we are all wishing, I think we will be obliged to do all the necessary in order to scale enough and successfully and this means the block size increase and the lighting network and the fee increase and probably something else that will needed to be developed.

So yes, the block size increase is inevitable in my opinion as well! The only question is whether this will be?

[pedrog]

Blockstream is doing a great work in trying to scale Bitcoin to global levels without the tradeoff of big blocks that would make Bitcoin extremely centralized as the nodes wouldn't be able to ran by everyday people. Scum are the ones that want big blocks so Bitcoin becomes controlled by Google and other datacenters.

“At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.”

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

The design outlines a lightweight client that does not need the full block chain.  In the design PDF it's called Simplified Payment Verification.  The lightweight client can send and receive transactions, it just can't generate blocks.  It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them itself.

The lightweight client is not implemented yet, but the plan is to implement it when it's needed.  For now, everyone just runs a full network node.

I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less.  It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in.  The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.

At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[ShrykeZ]

I hate Blockstream for blocking with DDOS and censorship the possibility of > 1 MB blocks just so their system can become more valuable and make them lots of money as they tax the onramps (via sidechains) to the blockchain.  Fuck them.  Hope they die soon.

But, I do think there is one good argument for small blocks.  A blockchain cancer is Satoshi Dice.  Other schemes which pump the chain full of meaningless transactions are equally harmful.  If we have 1MB limits, transaction might soon cost $.30 - or more.  This would eliminate Satoshi Dice and other bullshit.  If your transaction is worth something, welcome to the blockchain, if not, gut fucked buddy - spam not welcome here.  So, maybe 1MB limit is better.  Maybe paying $.50/transaction is a good idea. 

Blocking a service, be it "spammy" or not is not a good solution, Satoshi Dice, spammy or not brings a lot of people into Bitcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

Just what I wanted, another blocksize debate thread! lol

Have to agree though... i really hate the conflict of interest
going on where the core devs are the same dudes at
blockstream.

[mikewirth]

Have to agree though... i really hate the conflict of interest
going on where the core devs are the same dudes at
blockstream.

Yep.  This is pure garbage.  Smelly garbage.  Wouldn't be so bad - if they didn't try to bend the argument to favor their solution.  But that is exactly what they are doing.  They are intentionally trying to cripple the transaction capacity - so they can offer their solution.  I call BS.

[Viscore]

How much fee will blockstream charge for providing the service? If it is same or lower than the Core fees, I might use it.