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

[Cconvert2G36]

#rekt, shills ignored. 

[Realpra]

Add me to the list.

We can start with 2mb blocks, but we need bigger blocks at some point.

Swarm nodes are possible which prevents centralization:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1314482.0

[ATguy]

i like to think outside of the box. and it seems that many people argue, if your not a XT supporter you must be a blockstream supporter.

which brings people to start a 'race war' about which community people belong to.

but think outside of the box and ask yourself,
in 2011 when mining was done on GPU, why wasnt there "security risks" and people crying when the average block went from 100kb to 200kb, when the average persons hard drive was 250gb

why in 2013 when mining was done by 60ghash miners and the blocks were 500kb average and peoples hard drives were 500gb average, that there was no big arguments?

why in 2016 where a 2TB hard drive is cheap enough for regular people to buy, suddenly there is a problem for even an increase of the blocklimit to 2mb.

afterall if a GPU that is 1,000,000 slower than just one current asic, but was able to handle 10% of a 2mb block potential(200kb average bloat).. then just going by the numbers. an asic can handle alot more let alone a farm of asics. and the amount of ram the pool can put on their motherboards is higher than previous years too, meaning it debunks the the block hashing problem.(crying about orphans)

as for non mining user distribution of the solved blocks(full node users).. a 2tb hard drive can fix that argument too.. as a 2mb block would allow for 104gb yearly bloat, for ~20 years
even gavins proposed 8mb allows users to have 412gb yearly bloat for 5 years..

i personally think 8mb is a bit much straight off the cuff. id prefer 2mb and then increase if bottlenecks happen in the future.
by which time internet speed and storage capacity would be far more then average now. and affordable by average people.

if the debate is about bandwidth.. well i run a fullnode, i watch streaming videos (netflix, etc) play online gaming.. and i dont have any internet hiccups, and i dont expect to have any if the blocks went upto 2mb either. and im on a internet speed of under 20mb/s (nothing special)

once you realise that netflix streams at 1gb/hour SD and 3gb/hour HD.. which equates to 166mb every 10 minutes SD or 500mb every 10 minutes HD. you will then see that moaning about 1mb, 2mb, 8mb for something that gives you financial security.. is smallfry compared to bandwidth bloat of video which gives you just boredom relief temporarily.

in short if your computer and internet can handle netflix.. then blocksizes are not a problem

in short:
i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

i would also like to know. out of all the people arguing which camp people belong to, and also what is the best way forward for bitcoin as a whole...who of them actually runs a bitcoin full node. as i think it should only be a discussion for those people who will actually be running a full node. or actually want to run a full node

You summed up rationally the reasons why I believe bigger blocks are possible, and reasonable increases does not lead to loss of node decentralization - when you check average block sizes vs number of nodes you see like for every doubled average block size the number of nodes is decreased by very little like one tenth.

I guess the rational small blockers reasons are they run full nodes on virtual servers, where the resources are very limited. I think it is the wrong way, and it is better to run full node on your local PC (even if not 24/7) where the resources are enought to be able to scale the Bitcoin more in peer-to-peer manner (as much as technology allows), not only in offchain more centralized solutions (today core dev goal)

[franky1]

I guess the rational small blockers reasons are they run full nodes on virtual servers,

agreed with all your statements but wanted to highlight the above.

what some 'virtual server' users dont realise is that a few of them choose bitcoin accepting service to do this. which results in many nodes belonging to the same datacenter because there is limited amount of datacenters that accept bitcoin. which is the polar opposite of increasing distribution compared to running it independently on their own PC.

a few years ago there was one website hosting service accepting bitcoin and when hacked the datacenter bblamed outsiders for social engineering hack attempts. but rumours were it was an inside job..

and now it kind of makes me laugh when i read that both the blockstream and xt camps said that a few members have distributed upto 100 nodes each world wide.
at first you think there are hundreds of hundreds of individual computers connected to differing ip addresses in hundreds of hundreds of different physical locations..

but then the punchline being that they rented out datacenter space in only a dozen or less datacenters, meaning that there are many nodes per datacenter, missing the whole point of distributing the blockchain

but as i said in last post. the blocksize debate should only be argued by those who actually do or want to run a full node on their own local computer.

anyone responding to say that webservices need nodes on virtual services, are not practicing good bitcoin security in regards hotwallet hacks of customer funds.
what they should be doing is to not use 'hotwallets' at all.. but when a customer makes a withdrawal or transfer request. the request command doesnt go to a hotwallet (virtual server bitcoin node) but gets put into a database on the virtual server.
and completely remotely, away from the server and on the service owners PRIVATE/local computer, the private computer monitors the virtual server database for withdrawal requests, and processes them OFF server.. via the private/local computer.

never ever ever is it acceptable or secure to have a node on the same server as the websites GUI(main domain). so will people please stop putting nodes on virtual servers, not only for hotwallet hack prevention, but also to not have the distribution of nodes limited to a few datacenters

[keepdoing]

i like to think outside of the box. and it seems that many people argue, if your not a XT supporter you must be a blockstream supporter.

which brings people to start a 'race war' about which community people belong to.

but think outside of the box and ask yourself,
in 2011 when mining was done on GPU, why wasnt there "security risks" and people crying when the average block went from 100kb to 200kb, when the average persons hard drive was 250gb

why in 2013 when mining was done by 60ghash miners and the blocks were 500kb average and peoples hard drives were 500gb average, that there was no big arguments?

why in 2016 where a 2TB hard drive is cheap enough for regular people to buy, suddenly there is a problem for even an increase of the blocklimit to 2mb.

afterall if a GPU that is 1,000,000 slower than just one current asic, but was able to handle 10% of a 2mb block potential(200kb average bloat).. then just going by the numbers. an asic can handle alot more let alone a farm of asics. and the amount of ram the pool can put on their motherboards is higher than previous years too, meaning it debunks the the block hashing problem.(crying about orphans)

as for non mining user distribution of the solved blocks(full node users).. a 2tb hard drive can fix that argument too.. as a 2mb block would allow for 104gb yearly bloat, for ~20 years
even gavins proposed 8mb allows users to have 412gb yearly bloat for 5 years..

i personally think 8mb is a bit much straight off the cuff. id prefer 2mb and then increase if bottlenecks happen in the future.
by which time internet speed and storage capacity would be far more then average now. and affordable by average people.

if the debate is about bandwidth.. well i run a fullnode, i watch streaming videos (netflix, etc) play online gaming.. and i dont have any internet hiccups, and i dont expect to have any if the blocks went upto 2mb either. and im on a internet speed of under 20mb/s (nothing special)

once you realise that netflix streams at 1gb/hour SD and 3gb/hour HD.. which equates to 166mb every 10 minutes SD or 500mb every 10 minutes HD. you will then see that moaning about 1mb, 2mb, 8mb for something that gives you financial security.. is smallfry compared to bandwidth bloat of video which gives you just boredom relief temporarily.

in short if your computer and internet can handle netflix.. then blocksizes are not a problem

in short:
i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

i would also like to know. out of all the people arguing which camp people belong to, and also what is the best way forward for bitcoin as a whole...who of them actually runs a bitcoin full node. as i think it should only be a discussion for those people who will actually be running a full node. or actually want to run a full node

You summed up rationally the reasons why I believe bigger blocks are possible, and reasonable increases does not lead to loss of node decentralization - when you check average block sizes vs number of nodes you see like for every doubled average block size the number of nodes is decreased by very little like one tenth.

I guess the rational small blockers reasons are they run full nodes on virtual servers, where the resources are very limited. I think it is the wrong way, and it is better to run full node on your local PC (even if not 24/7) where the resources are enought to be able to scale the Bitcoin more in peer-to-peer manner (as much as technology allows), not only in offchain more centralized solutions (today core dev goal)

Agree that Franky sums up situation well.  Big deal.  This really has nothing to do with technical issues.  Does anyone honestly believe the Blockstream Players  don't understand the fact that a slow, methodical, block increase would be just perfectly fine?  Blockstream/Core Dev doesn't need your rational techno-arguments.  They are well aware of them.  They agree.  They understand.

It is all of YOU that don't understand..... you don't understand that they don't care.  This has nothing to do with technical issues anymore.  It has to do with Conflict Of Interest.  Blockstream Players have stacked the Core/Dev deck.  They are intentionally delaying block size increase in order to perfect sidechain.  They are creating a pent up demand for their services, for their model.  They HAVE STATED CLEARLY that they believe Bitcoin is not "Cash" nor do they ever want it to be.  They believe the full potential of Bitcoin is as (1) Digital Gold (2) a Visa/ACH/Shift style payment transaction method for banks.

The longer everyone refuses to face the reality of the situation, and pretend that this has anything to do with technical arguments, the longer Blockstream Players succeed in their strategy.   I am NOT saying that in the end the actual "technology" isn't of utmost importance.  

I am simply saying that this entire thing is simply about lack of will due to conflict of interest, and until enough negative reputational political pressure is applied to Blockstream Players..... nothing will change, and you will in the end get a crippled Bitcoin that will NEVER be THE COIN.

There is a reason that even hardcore Bitcoiners like myself have started NOT BUYING MORE, and keeping an eye out for an exit door.  Bitcoin is just money, and the current situation is making it into a pretty Crappy Money.  There are people out there working on better mousetraps, and that have the existing fiat cash and control to push that new mousetrap out into the eyes of the world (while at the same time using their mass media to DESTROY overnight the reputation of Bitcoin).  

Some of you should look up from your computers and check out the financial world.  Time is running out for a cryptocurrency to be ready for the Global Financial Implosion.  To be ready to receive the masses.  It won't be in 2025, or 2020, or even 2017.  It's going to happen this year whether you like it or not.

My odds that it is going to be Bitcoin just dropped under 50% for the first time.

[hdbuck]

i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

Try downloading the gigabloatchain once they raise the block size... 60GB is already a pain today.

[keepdoing]

i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

Try downloading the gigabloatchain once they raise the block size... 60GB is already a pain today.

It is a one-time event, then maintain.  Ultimately there will be enough people to maintain the network as mass adoption occurs.  The untapped number of people out there, and companies, and ISPs, and smaller data centers that will be willing to operate as Nodes once mass adoption occurs will be quite significant.  It will grow quite exponentially at some point.  And yes, it may weed out some whining llamas - but they are filthy spittle drewling creatures no one wants to be around anyways.  Also have small brains.  

Not really an issue, and it really doesn't matter, since even if we had GB/Sec download speed, and 500TB laptop hardrives it wouldn't change the fact that Blockstream Players have a Conflict of Interest agenda, and are abusing their power over Core/Dev decisions.  They would manufacture another set of excuses, until at the end they resort to simply coming out in the end and stop pretending, and just admit they have an agenda, and have hte authority, and intend to use it to whatever ends they want.

Not really a complicated little bit to understand.  But everyone is welcome to continue to pretend it is about technical limitations.  Nice game that wastes time I guess.

ONLY solution is that an individual with Comitt authority pulls an "XT-Like" power play.  Only, this time they don't do it STUPID.  

2 Block increase with controlled built in increases.  Satoshi laid the sword on the shoulder of Gavin.  The Annointed Knight of the Bitcoin followed the whisperings of a Betrayer and now is paralyzed by the shame of his actions.

Ah, Glorious Knight!  Wherefore art thy former Glory and Courage!?!?  Or have they forever betrayed and abandoned thy people and thy King!?!?  Arise and shake off thy dishonor good sir, and do thy duty!

[VeritasSapere]

We now have four alternative implementations that support increasing the blocksize. There is XT, BU, Btcd and most recently BitPay released another alternative implementation with an adaptive blocksize. Bitcoin is not reliant on Core, Core is not Bitcoin. The sooner people realize this the better, we should not wait for Core or keep asking them to change these things when they have made their intentions clear. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences of philosophy, ideology and vision. This is a test of the very governance mechanism within Bitcoin itself. The greatest threat of centralization is presently coming from the centralization of development and the power that this entails.

I think that Bitcoin achieves "trust" without centralized authority. If Bitcoin where to be dependent upon a centralized authority like Core then Bitcoin would lose this important quality, it would essentially become a technocracy. Both fortunately and unfortunately I suppose, Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus. There is a silver lining here which is that in Bitcoin, we can only lose our freedoms by allowing others to decide for us. Bitcoin empowers volunteerism so this can cut both ways. I do still believe that in an environment where we have the free exchange of ideas and information the truth will reign supreme. So I am still bullish on Bitcoin, having confidence in the market that it will do the right thing and allow the original vision of Satoshi to triumph.

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it.

[VeritasSapere]

For now, dump your evidence and/or observations (or even just the case you feel showcases the most obvious shilling) in this thread! Preferrably concisely summarized, though the more detailed and hyperlinked the better.

To my mind, the most obvious case is VeritasSapere. What is the probability that this guy is not employed full-time by a group whose goal it is to destroy Bitcoin? The username itself seems like a clue.

There is no evidence of shilling on either side of the debate, so what is the point in per suing this line of argument? Accusing other people of being shills without evidence is just ad hominem and not conductive towards productive discussion. It does the opposite of strengthening your cause since you are just revealing that your rationality is weak by supporting such "conspiracy theories". Your time is better spent countering my arguments as opposed to accusing me of being a shill, which I am not for the record. Even if I where a shill it is unproductive and even damaging to the discourse here to accuse me of this without evidence.

I could just as easily accuse certain small block proponents of being shills for either blockstream or governments. I will not do that however since accusing people of such things without evidence is wrong and it is more productive to stick to rational discussion, logic, reason and what can be known instead of futilely focusing on the unknowable.

I can explain what my alias means. It is latin, I am also a history buff as well as having a political philosophy background. Veritas means truth and it was also the name of the main character in the movie "V for Vendetta", the mask that he wears has now become a symbol for the cypherpunk movement and anonymous movement as well. Sapere is a bit harder to pin down in terms of meaning, but it can be described as knowledge, or a thirst for knowledge. I took it from an older phrase which is "Sapere Aude". Which means "dare to be wise", which has significant meaning in terms of enlightenment and philosophical thinking. So you could translate my alias to mean something along the lines of "A thirst for true knowledge".

[brg444]

Notorious charlatan Peter___R apparently had a meeting with the REDDIT.COM censor SHIPS https://www.reddit.com/user/Peter__R
 

[brg444]

I can explain what my alias means. It is latin, I am also a history buff as well as having a political philosophy background.

 

Do you realize how obnoxious you sound every time you say these things

[Fatman3001]

I can explain what my alias means. It is latin, I am also a history buff as well as having a political philosophy background.

 

Do you realize how obnoxious you sound every time you say these things

[franky1]

i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

Try downloading the gigabloatchain once they raise the block size... 60GB is already a pain today.

60gb for 7 years of data..

i dare you to watch 7 years of tv shows..
i dare you to install all versions of GTA
i dare you to install all versions of call of duty

i bet your more willing to watch netflix or download games 2 times a year

the funny thing is no one complains about watching 60 netflix shows. or playing just 2 games.. but somehow something that is worth more to them then $50 worth of subscription or gaming.. EG holders of atleast 1bitcoin.. cry that its too much to handle.. 60gb of data

yes its a hassle downloading at first. but once its done you wont even notice it and wont care that its in the background for the next few decades.

inshort if you have GTA or call of duty on your hard drive, and happy to have it.. then you have nothing to cry about

[sgbett]

You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big... 

[franky1]

You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big... 

yep

and a 2tb hard drive for 20 years of 2mb or 5 years of 8mb= $92, not really breaking the bank for 5-20 years storage needs ($4.60-$19 a year)

[Fatman3001]

You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big...  

yep

and a 2tb hard drive for 20 years of 2mb or 5 years of 8mb= $92, not really breaking the bank for 5-20 years storage needs ($4.60-$19 a year)

You'll probably want to change your hard drive before it fills up anyway. They don't last forever.

(Besides, with all full 8mb blocks we'll have a whole new generation of very affluent bitcoiners. These things don't happen in a vacuum.)

[franky1]

You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big... 

yep

and a 2tb hard drive for 20 years of 2mb or 5 years of 8mb= $92, not really breaking the bank for 5-20 years storage needs ($4.60-$19 a year)

You'll probably want to change your hard drive before it fills up anyway. They don't last forever.

yeo and in 2-5 years a 4tb-6tb will be under $100.. so scalability is not an issue

[Fatman3001]

You are right, 60GB doesn't look so big... 

yep

and a 2tb hard drive for 20 years of 2mb or 5 years of 8mb= $92, not really breaking the bank for 5-20 years storage needs ($4.60-$19 a year)

You'll probably want to change your hard drive before it fills up anyway. They don't last forever.

yeo and in 2-5 years a 4tb-6tb will be under $100.. so scalability is not an issue

At least not when it comes to storage space.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W01HP4642

$124 for 4tb.

Bandwidth OTOH... But I got an offer from my isp of a 500MB/50MB line for $99 a month. Not exactly cheap, but for a drooling nerd it's a "worthwhile investment".

[hdbuck]

i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

Try downloading the gigabloatchain once they raise the block size... 60GB is already a pain today.

60gb for 7 years of data..

i dare you to watch 7 years of tv shows..
i dare you to install all versions of GTA
i dare you to install all versions of call of duty

i bet your more willing to watch netflix or download games 2 times a year

the funny thing is no one complains about watching 60 netflix shows. or playing just 2 games.. but somehow something that is worth more to them then $50 worth of subscription or gaming.. EG holders of atleast 1bitcoin.. cry that its too much to handle.. 60gb of data

yes its a hassle downloading at first. but once its done you wont even notice it and wont care that its in the background for the next few decades.

inshort if you have GTA or call of duty on your hard drive, and happy to have it.. then you have nothing to cry about

WTF is this? How old are you? I think your brain got lost in the video games and TV shows. 

There, I highlighted the relevant part. Barrier entry much, but you noobs are into SPV right?

[Lauda]

At least not when it comes to storage space.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2W01HP4642

$124 for 4tb.

Bandwidth OTOH... But I got an offer from my isp of a 500MB/50MB line for $99 a month. Not exactly cheap, but for a drooling nerd it's a "worthwhile investment".

Your post is a fine example of faulty generalization and nonsense. You are trying to present that price point as available to everyone which is not even close in reality. Most people of the world do not have access to those prices and a single TB tends to cost ~100$ depending on where you live. With bandwidth it is much worse with the world average being 5.0 Mbps. I'm not sure how this exactly is relevant to the OP?

yeo and in 2-5 years a 4tb-6tb will be under $100.. so scalability is not an issue

Scalability is not about storage only.