Small blocksize increase should be done first and SegWit second

[keepdoing]

No hard fork has zero risk, seg wit has much lower risk than 2 mb hardfork. Also where did you get that "everyone agrees" with that? as far as I know a lot of people disagree with that.

I think the main risk is being caused by the political toxicity of the issue.  Blockstream Players are intentionally creating the toxicity.  They are aware that this creates more inherent danger in a Hard Fork.  Therefore they get what they want.... no progress in block growth, no solutions that offer anything other than exclusive sidechain solutions.

[1714133534]

1714133534

[1714133534]

1714133534

[1714133534]

1714133534

[CIYAM]

Don't be intentionally stupid.

Again - you just can't help yourself but to be a fucking rude asshole can you?

Here is a big hint for you - if you don't be an asshole then maybe people might actually even bother to read what you post.

I've actually come to believe Mike's approach deserves a bit more respect, seeing as how he probably reacted out of utter frustration in dealing with the Blockstream Players.

As I suspected you are actually an XT shill being paid by none other than Mike himself (he probably has enough BTC to pay for another year's worth of this at least).

[keepdoing]

Don't be intentionally stupid.

Again - you just can't help yourself but to be a fucking rude asshole can you?

Here is a big hint for you - if you don't be an asshole then maybe people might actually even bother to read what you post.

I've actually come to believe Mike's approach deserves a bit more respect, seeing as how he probably reacted out of utter frustration in dealing with the Blockstream Players.

As I suspected you are actually an XT shill being paid by none other than Mike himself (he probably has enough BTC to pay for another year's worth of this at least).

Getting under your skin am I?  Lost your cool and cursing like a sailor

And I've made it clear that I think Mike's version of XT was ill thought out, overambitious and not in best interest of Bitcoin.  So you are just flat out lying also.

ROFL.... Here's your only real problem.... I don't support sidechains as an exclusive solution.  I don't support rampant and careless big block building on the main chain exclusively.

I support wisdom, unbiased leadership, sound decisions that open the doors for individuals to use bitcoin, small business companies to use bitcoin,  midsize banks to use bitcoin, and governments to us bitcoin.  In others words... a Total Solution, which is what Bitcoin is capable of.

[CIYAM]

ROFL.... Here's your only real problem.... I don't support sidechains as an exclusive solution.  I don't support rampant and careless big block building on the main chain exclusively.

Where exactly did I say that I support sidechains as an exclusive solution?

(answer - in your dreams - so again you are basically lying - is it so hard to tell the truth?)

[keepdoing]

ROFL.... Here's your only real problem.... I don't support sidechains as an exclusive solution.  I don't support rampant and careless big block building on the main chain exclusively.

Where exactly did I say that I support sidechains as an exclusive solution?

(answer - in your dreams - so again you are basically lying - is it so hard to tell the truth?)

Sorry, now you are just walking into the mud pit, and challenging me to crawl in.  Just took a shower.  Have things to do today.  Maybe tomorrow.

[CIYAM]

Sorry, now you are just walking into the mud pit, and challenging me to crawl in.  Just took a shower.  Have things to do today.  Maybe tomorrow.

I see - so you have nothing further to offer to this topic (as I suspected) - I will unwatch it now so you can enjoy chatting to yourself tomorrow.

@OP - I hope you can see the friends that you are gathering.

[LiteCoinGuy]

BTW if your holy number was choosen 256 KB instead in the past, where we would be today - start thinking please

It is really disappointing that I have to repeat myself again but I will:

Just increasing the block size won't scale.

Do you get it yet?

(the question is not about 1MB or 2MB or 10MB but about how Bitcoin can scale)

indeed, but we would win time and could come up with a good solution. there would be no fee-market too which is harmful at this early stage.

[CIYAM]

indeed, but we would win time and could come up with a good solution. there would be no fee-market too which is harmful at this early stage.

I really don't see the problem.

Currently I can use Bitcoin to move huge amounts of money from one country to another without resorting to "bags of cash" or "loads of jewellery" yet somehow even though Bitcoin is not even been properly used for just this purpose (i.e. remittance) we have to panic and increase the block size so that people can buy coffees for BTC.

There are very few people in the world that are even paid in BTC - so why the fuck do we need to sell coffees in BTC?

Why can't you guys wait for BTC to be successful in the very area it *should kick ass in* (which is remittance) before you demand your *coffees* need to be able to be paid for in BTC?

[franky1]

average hard drives over the last 16 years has doubled every 2 years
3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,765

yea some people in 2000 had 2gb hard drives some had 4gb hard drives
yea some people in 2016 have 500gb hard drives, some have 1tb hard drives.

but an increase of doubling every 2 years is a natural rise.. even satoshi envisioned that (every 105,000 blocks).. then people complaining about bloat wont complain about it as they will be getting larger hard drives to compensate

i agree that it wont suddenly make bitcoin handle visa transaction volumes in 6 months.. but thats because people are not realising how fake visa's suggested volume is.. especially when visa's system is not actually one system, but multiple separate systems with mutliple separate databases. and thus their actual handling of tx's per system is far far less.. and thus far less to worry about.

especially anytime right now.

and the reason most people are waiting more than 10 minutes per block is not to do with bloat.. its to do with miners limiting transactions out of greed..
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days

0.75mb is the average maximum... not 0.99mb

meaning on average there is plenty of room for more transactions per block... if only the miners would stop being greedy and just accept all transactions and stop blaming other reasons..

orphans only happen because miners do not stale their attempts when a competing block is solved.. this has nothing to do with transaction numbers. but more to do with miners greed hoping that if they push on and continue to solve their block, and then push on and hope to solve the next block before anyone else.. their previous block becomes valid and the competitors block becomes the orphan..

if miners just accepted transactions as they come and then stale their attempts if a competitor solves first.. then transactions wont get delayed and orphans wont happen.. its just that simple.. greed is the blame not bloat.

[keepdoing]

indeed, but we would win time and could come up with a good solution. there would be no fee-market too which is harmful at this early stage.

I really don't see the problem.

Currently I can use Bitcoin to move huge amounts of money from one country to another without resorting to "bags of cash" or "loads of jewellery" yet somehow even though Bitcoin is not even been properly used for just this purpose (i.e. remittance) we have to panic and increase the block size so that people can buy coffees for BTC.

There are very few people in the world that are even paid in BTC - so why the fuck do we need to sell coffees in BTC?

Why can't you guys wait for BTC to be successful in the very area it *should kick ass in* (which is remittance) before you demand your *coffees* need to be able to be paid for in BTC?

PROBLEM: Some people like to tell other people what bitcoin "should" be used in, and whether or not other people should be able to buy coffee with bitcoin.  Thank G-d people are thinking for me, or I might do something horribly independent and private without their being able to track it.

[CIYAM]

PROBLEM: Some people like to tell other people what bitcoin "should" be used in, and whether or not other people should be able to buy coffee with bitcoin.  Thank G-d people are thinking for me, or I might do something horribly independent and private without their being able to track it.

Again you are spouting nonsense as seems to be your thing.

I will unwatch this topic also as I have no interest in reading any more of your stupid posts.

If any of the people in this topic actually want to be taken seriously then you really need to rethink your topics.

Spouting nonsense and attacking people might be fun but it doesn't actually change the minds of anyone that is actually intelligent.

(perhaps this is a Donald Trump thing)

[keepdoing]

PROBLEM: Some people like to tell other people what bitcoin "should" be used in, and whether or not other people should be able to buy coffee with bitcoin.  Thank G-d people are thinking for me, or I might do something horribly independent and private without their being able to track it.

Again you are spouting nonsense as seems to be your thing.

I will unwatch this topic also as I have no interest in reading any more of your stupid posts.

If any of the people in this topic actually want to be taken seriously then you really need to rethink your topics.

Spouting nonsense and attacking people might be fun but it doesn't actually change the minds of anyone that is actually intelligent.

(perhaps this is a Donald Trump thing)

Bu Bye!  See ya!  Although - you have said before you were going to ignore me.  I knew it was too good to be true.

I still like the general concepts espoused by the OP.  Too bad he included a suggestion for increasing block size as part of the overall solution.  That unfortunately has rubbed the Blockstream Players the wrong way, and they are comig out of the woodwork en masse spreading FUD, nonsensical confusion, spinning facts etc.

[LiteCoinGuy]

indeed, but we would win time and could come up with a good solution. there would be no fee-market too which is harmful at this early stage.

I really don't see the problem.

Currently I can use Bitcoin to move huge amounts of money from one country to another without resorting to "bags of cash" or "loads of jewellery" yet somehow even though Bitcoin is not even been properly used for just this purpose (i.e. remittance) we have to panic and increase the block size so that people can buy coffees for BTC.

There are very few people in the world that are even paid in BTC - so why the fuck do we need to sell coffees in BTC?

Why can't you guys wait for BTC to be successful in the very area it *should kick ass in* (which is remittance) before you demand your *coffees* need to be able to be paid for in BTC?

i did not write anything about coffee.

lets assume i use it for remittance and want to sent 10 USD to india (which is alot there) and transaction fees rise over the next months. now i have to pay 10-15% in fees. great usecase bitcoin.  

[CIYAM]

i did not write anything about coffee.

lets assume i use it to remittance and want to sent 10 USD to india (which is alot there). now i have to pay 10-15% in fees (1-1,50 USD). great usecase.  

I pay 0% fees for my BTC txs - so why are yours costing 10-15%?

(we are clearly not arguing about BTC at all but now some imagined fee percentage that you invented)

[franky1]

i did not write anything about coffee.

lets assume i use it to remittance and want to sent 10 USD to india (which is alot there). now i have to pay 10-15% in fees (1-1,50 USD). great usecase.  

I pay 0% fees for my BTC txs - so why are yours costing 10-15%?

(we are clearly not arguing about BTC at all but now some imagined fee percentage that you invented)

0 fee's?

ok $10, input into localbitcoins.. cheapest valuation =$444 per btc
so $10=0.022653   
ok 0.022653, input into localbitcoins.. cheapest valuation =27488.89 INR / BTC
= 622 INR

google: dollar to indian rupee: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dollar+to+indian+rupee
$10=662 INR

622 vs 662 =6% loss ($0.60 cost or 40 rupee cost)

[CIYAM]

0 fee's?

Yes - when I sent the 200 BTC back to the forum do you think I paid a fee?

[franky1]

0 fee's?

Yes - when I sent the 200 BTC back to the forum do you think I paid a fee?

bitcoin 0 fee's technically or 0.0001 if you cant wait.. i agree.. but when you start talking about fiat prices from one country to another.. exactly what WU is all about.. there is a cost when dealing with the fiat at either side of bitcoin... if bitcoin was to be used as the middleman for fiat remittance.. which is 6% atleast

[CIYAM]

bitcoin 0 fee's technically or 0.0001 if you cant wait.. i agree.. but when you start talking about fiat prices from one country to another.. exactly what WU is all about.. there is a cost when dealing with the fiat at either side of bitcoin... if bitcoin was to be used as the middleman for fiat remittance.. which is 6% atleast

You are just making up stats now.

I was using BTC to move money from Australia to China years ago and I actually profited from the remittance (which is something unheard of in moving money from one country to another).

So I moved AUD to China and got more RMB than the AUD/CNY exchange rate at the time - do you understand that?

[franky1]

You are just making up stats now.

making up??


now i dare you to show me a local bitcoin method to convert $10 into 482 INR

go on.. show me your stats.. as i just showed you the 9% loss (6% loss if US dollar 9% loss is australian dollar )
the only mistake i made in my stats in previous post was i used USD not AUD as the origin of the remittance.

now have a nice day

[LiteCoinGuy]