Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[watashi-kokoto]

Yay we won. 1MB blocks mined constantly. But make no mistake big blockers! I'm keeping an eye on you.

[Fatman3001]

At least there is some hope for sanity:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-cores-jonas-schnelli-core-would-need-to-increase-block-size-if-classic-succeeds/

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

At least there is some hope for sanity:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-cores-jonas-schnelli-core-would-need-to-increase-block-size-if-classic-succeeds/

I posted that here. But it didn't have REKT in the title. It was my own fault, really.

[Fatman3001]

At least there is some hope for sanity:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-cores-jonas-schnelli-core-would-need-to-increase-block-size-if-classic-succeeds/

I posted that here. But it didn't have REKT in the title. It was my own fault, really.

Well, you know.

Bitcoins are for closers!!!

[btcusury]

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.

Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.

Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.

So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.

But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell observes:

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes. Subsequently, we figured out how to make a similar increase in direct capacity with segwit while also improving scaling, without the hard fork.

So on this account, I think your binary classification is a bit off. I think a significant portion of people advocating larger blocks don't care about user experience at all (after all, much larger blocks will be devastating to the user experience of running a node) but about being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth with the most minimal effort possible. A purpose I don't necessarily oppose, but not one we can sell bitcoin's medium to long term future to achieve: this isn't a ponzi scheme.

We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)

[hdbuck]

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.

Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.

Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.

So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.

We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)

Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.

[bargainbin]

...
Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.

Bitcoin doesn't need moar money, bitcoiners do.

[hdbuck]

...
Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.

Bitcoin doesn't need moar money, bitcoiners do.

Bitcoiners need a safe haven from TPTB and banksters in which they can store their money.

Poor kids hoping to catch a train are hopeless.

[bargainbin]

...
Bitcoin does not need moar people/transactions to gain value. It needs moar money.

Bitcoin doesn't need moar money, bitcoiners do.

Bitcoiners need a safe haven from TPTB and banksters in which they can store their money.

Poor kids hoping to catch a train are hopeless.

Bitcoiners don't need a place to store their money. They ain't got any.
Because blew it all on magic BTCeans & BTCeanies. prudently invested it all in BTC.

[Fatman3001]

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.

Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.

Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.

So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.

But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell observes:

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes. Subsequently, we figured out how to make a similar increase in direct capacity with segwit while also improving scaling, without the hard fork.

So on this account, I think your binary classification is a bit off. I think a significant portion of people advocating larger blocks don't care about user experience at all (after all, much larger blocks will be devastating to the user experience of running a node) but about being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth with the most minimal effort possible. A purpose I don't necessarily oppose, but not one we can sell bitcoin's medium to long term future to achieve: this isn't a ponzi scheme.

We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)

So, don't succumb to heard mentality. Follow Core blindly?

We all remember that Gavin and Hearn wanted a solution which was more than a can-kick. But that wasn't possible to get through.

2MB is nothing. Because we'll have to settle for a can kick we're guaranteed to spend the next couple of years dealing with the block size limit.

What's Gmazwell's point with bringing this stuff up? Someone disagreed with him back then so Bitcoin has to burn?

If they just introduced BIP101 back then, the community could have spent its precious energy on actually solving problems, rather than bickering.

[jonald_fyookball]

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.

Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.

Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.

So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.

But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell observes:

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes. Subsequently, we figured out how to make a similar increase in direct capacity with segwit while also improving scaling, without the hard fork.

So on this account, I think your binary classification is a bit off. I think a significant portion of people advocating larger blocks don't care about user experience at all (after all, much larger blocks will be devastating to the user experience of running a node) but about being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth with the most minimal effort possible. A purpose I don't necessarily oppose, but not one we can sell bitcoin's medium to long term future to achieve: this isn't a ponzi scheme.

We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)

So, don't succumb to heard mentality. Follow Core blindly?

We all remember that Gavin and Hearn wanted a solution which was more than a can-kick. But that wasn't possible to get through.

2MB is nothing. Because we'll have to settle for a can kick we're guaranteed to spend the next couple of years dealing with the block size limit.

What's Gmazwell's point with bringing this stuff up? Someone disagreed with him back then so Bitcoin has to burn?

If they just introduced BIP101 back then, the community could have spent its precious energy on actually solving problems, rather than bickering.

I don't think gmax ever implied 'bitcoin has to burn' but I don't think people are as interested in "being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth"
as they are simply in having a clear picture in where we are going and when.

The so called scalability roadmap is vague and it would be much better if there were clear milestones markers with ETAs.
Even if there is not agreement on the best way to scale, anyone publishing a 'scalability roadmap' should provide
a lot of detail IMO if they want people to buy into their vision.

[btcusury]

Aaaand Fatman ignores everything that's being said and repeats the same old argument once again...


In the interest of using most precise terminology, I think we should use Greg Maxwell's term "the bigger-blocks-at-any-cost community" to refer to the "big blockists". There's nothing intrinsically reprehensible about being a "big blockist", but it's hard to logically justify being a "bigger-blocks-at-any-cost" promoter.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

At least there is some hope for sanity:

http://coinjournal.net/bitcoin-cores-jonas-schnelli-core-would-need-to-increase-block-size-if-classic-succeeds/

Blockstream management were unavailable for comment

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized.

The small block argument falls at this fist hurdle. If bitcoin gets bigger, it - well - Gets Bigger. There is no escaping that fact. If people want bitcoin to be a major player as a payment option for millions, then they will almost certainly not be able to run a full validating node on any shity 486 they have lying about the house.

And please don't insult us by crying "But segregated witness!" - segwit will require all full validating nodes to transmit and store as much, if not more, data as bitcoin currently does. 

The fact that small blockers trot this non-argument out as a cornerstone for maintaining the limit is a clear indication of how untenable their position is.

[Fatman3001]

A reddit user sums up the perspectives very neutrally:

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized. Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better.

Big blocker: Bitcoin will probably need more technology to help scaling, but that tech isn't ready yet and won't be for months. For now, the more important priority is to drive growth, and that means expanding capacity. The block size will have to grow eventually, so let's do it now and not start dropping transactions. We should ensure 0-conf continues to work reliably for purchases. New technologies will help make Bitcoin faster and more scalable, but people should use them or not based on their own merits; we shouldn't force people to change the way they transact by letting Bitcoin itself get clogged and expensive to use.

Put differently, one view focuses more on the system, the other focuses more on the users.

So yeah, one perspective insists on focusing on minor temporary short-term usability issues while not paying any attention to the long-term feasibility and security of the system itself. It's just like the television's "elections", where every 4 years the same routinary meaningless jabber fools countless millions of unthinking people into putting their energies and hope into a new icon with a different name and slightly altered slogan.

But it's not even that for most big blockists, as Greg Maxwell observes:

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes. Subsequently, we figured out how to make a similar increase in direct capacity with segwit while also improving scaling, without the hard fork.

So on this account, I think your binary classification is a bit off. I think a significant portion of people advocating larger blocks don't care about user experience at all (after all, much larger blocks will be devastating to the user experience of running a node) but about being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth with the most minimal effort possible. A purpose I don't necessarily oppose, but not one we can sell bitcoin's medium to long term future to achieve: this isn't a ponzi scheme.

We have a great invention here, please don't help ruin it by sheer herd stupidity. Yeah, it's hard to contain judgment energies! (Make sure to always withdraw them at the end of the day!)

So, don't succumb to heard mentality. Follow Core blindly?

We all remember that Gavin and Hearn wanted a solution which was more than a can-kick. But that wasn't possible to get through.

2MB is nothing. Because we'll have to settle for a can kick we're guaranteed to spend the next couple of years dealing with the block size limit.

What's Gmazwell's point with bringing this stuff up? Someone disagreed with him back then so Bitcoin has to burn?

If they just introduced BIP101 back then, the community could have spent its precious energy on actually solving problems, rather than bickering.

I don't think gmax ever implied 'bitcoin has to burn' but I don't think people are as interested in "being able to justify claims of fantastic upside growth"
as they are simply in having a clear picture in where we are going and when.

The so called scalability roadmap is vague and it would be much better if there were clear milestones markers with ETAs.
Even if there is not agreement on the best way to scale, anyone publishing a 'scalability roadmap' should provide
a lot of detail IMO if they want people to buy into their vision.

I gave Gmaxwell the benefit of doubt and assumed he was just being stubborn. But it seems like he is missing the point completely about the growth factor. The whole point isn't whether or not Bitcoin will grow 100x in the next couple of years. It's that it won't grow at all unless there is room for it to have growth along those lines. And Bitcoin isn't the only show in town anymore. I think it's the best show in town atm, but that doesn't matter.

Aaaand Fatman ignores everything that's being said and repeats the same old argument once again...

Does the above help?

Maybe I am missing something. I've only got one of those stupid heard-minds you know.

I'll try:

Node operators are not users, users are users. And the current user experience is shit because the system gets clogged up routinely.

"The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes"

This is true, but that doesn't mean that fewer people will run nodes. If Bitcoin attracts more people, more people will run nodes and a larger share of the nodes will be running 24/7 on HQ bandwidth.

"Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized."

A fairly defeatist attitude, but that's not an issue atm and shouldn't matter in this debate.

"Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better."

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this crap needs to be pushed through now. To use the current issue of growth being limited by the block size limit to shoehorn in a major change in the very nature Bitcoin works is very dangerous. It's not just about the code, it's how the Bitcoin economy reacts to this mechanism. And by forcing this false choice on the community, Core has pushed the miners to act on the block size limit. Now that the miners know that they can veto stuff, how are devs going to push thru the off-chain scaling solutions when the technology is ready? Core are a bunch of amateurs.

[Carlton Banks]

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized.

The small block argument falls at this fist hurdle. If bitcoin gets bigger, it - well - Gets Bigger. There is no escaping that fact. If people want bitcoin to be a major player as a payment option for millions, then they will almost certainly not be able to run a full validating node on any shity 486 they have lying about the house.

And please don't insult us by crying "But segregated witness!" - segwit will require all full validating nodes to transmit and store as much, if not more, data as bitcoin currently does.  

The fact that small blockers trot this non-argument out as a cornerstone for maintaining the limit is a clear indication of how untenable their position is.

But Lightning!

SegWit is the foundations for Lightning.

Segwit soft fork, followed by Blocksize hard fork.



Yes, all 3. SegWit. Then Lightning. Then Blocksize. or maybe swap the last 2, depends a bit.



Lightning is the only credible plan to scale up to billions using Bitcoin.

Who wouldn't be in favour of implementing the plan that actually scales up?

[VeritasSapere]

Small blocker: Bitcoin cannot scale indefinitely simply by increasing the block size. The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes, and thus the less secure the network is. Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized.

The small block argument falls at this fist hurdle. If bitcoin gets bigger, it - well - Gets Bigger. There is no escaping that fact. If people want bitcoin to be a major player as a payment option for millions, then they will almost certainly not be able to run a full validating node on any shity 486 they have lying about the house.

And please don't insult us by crying "But segregated witness!" - segwit will require all full validating nodes to transmit and store as much, if not more, data as bitcoin currently does.  

The fact that small blockers trot this non-argument out as a cornerstone for maintaining the limit is a clear indication of how untenable their position is.

But Lightning!

SegWit is the foundations for Lightning.

Segwit soft fork, followed by Blocksize hard fork.



Yes, all 3. SegWit. Then Lightning. Then Blocksize. or maybe swap the last 2, depends a bit.



Lightning is the only credible plan to scale up to billions using Bitcoin.

Who wouldn't be in favour of implementing the plan that actually scales up?

This is where we disagree. I do not consider moving transactions off chain to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all, it is the very opposite of that. The only way to scale Bitcoin directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize. People can use lighting if they want to or not, that is their choice and that is fine. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize, especially as technology increases for the purpose of incentivizing people to move more of their transactions off chain is wrong. Give people the free choice, if they prefer to use the lighting network over Bitcoin then that is fine and we will not need to increase the blocksize again.

Today however, the blocks are filling up and many people do not want a fee market. It is wrong for Core to attempt to unilaterally decide to change the economic policy of Bitcoin in this way. Lighting network is not complete and neither is SegWit, we can simply increase the blocksize to two megabytes. This will not destroy Bitcoin, as some people claim. This will allow Bitcoin to continue to grow, which is good for both decentralization and global financial freedom.

[Quantus]

The Bitcoin user base could grow by a factor of ten if you cut out all the spam and micro transactions by limiting block size causing fees to grow to around 1 dollar in value per transaction.
I do not think this would affect adoption in the slightest.
We're going to have to do it at some point, we won't have enough transaction fees (in the short term) to pay for our current level of security otherwise.

[Fatman3001]

The Bitcoin user base could grow by a factor of ten if you cut out all the spam and micro transactions by limiting block size causing fees to grow to around 1 dollar in value per transaction.
I do not think this would affect adoption in the slightest.

I have to save this quote. People don't believe me when I tell them.

[hdbuck]

The Bitcoin user base could grow by a factor of ten if you cut out all the spam and micro transactions by limiting block size causing fees to grow to around 1 dollar in value per transaction.
I do not think this would affect adoption in the slightest.

I have to save this quote. People don't believe me when I tell them.

you actually talk to real people?