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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I found this analogy to be simple:

Your 1GB hard drive is almost full, you have 2 options:

1. Buy a 2GB hard drive to replace the old hard drive
2. Buy another 1GB hard drive, and a RAID controller and set up a Raid 0 array, so that the Raid software will move 40% of the data from your old hard drive to new drive , so it becomes not full again. Then you have total 2GB of space in your new array, which functionality wise equal to a 2GB hard drive

I think any normal people will just go for the first option, only geeks and technical interested guy will try the second approach, and eventually many of them will give up on the second setup because it is just too complex to implement and maintain, and a Raid 0 will have higher risk of failure, it does not worth the effort

You don't think an absurd, Kafkaesqe metaphor would have been more helpful?

[iCEBREAKER]

teeming unbanked

Nice turn of phrase.  Consider it stolen.

As the Father of All Truth, Bitcoin is a liberation theology, promising the teeming masses (banked or otherwise) a future day of fiat jubilation.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".  -davout

Adherents will defend its diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties from adversity such as your latest social engineering attack, and grow stronger with experience.

[Carlton Banks]

I think Sgbett responded to this propaganda strategy of yours well:

HI BETT YOU ARE VERY INTEGRITY AND MUCH WISDOM

WHY THANK YOU VERITAS IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU HERE, YOU ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENCE

[Lauda]

I think any normal people will just go for the first option, only geeks and technical interested guy will try the second approach, and eventually many of them will give up on the second setup because it is just too complex to implement and maintain, and a Raid 0 will have higher risk of failure, it does not worth the effort

RAID 0 does not have a high risk of failure and it is usually used for much better performance not endurance/storage and thus this analogy is wrong. Let's move on.

HI BETT YOU ARE VERY INTEGRITY AND MUCH WISDOM

WHY THANK YOU VERITAS IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU HERE, YOU ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENCE

No different from when my mom tells me that I'm beautiful.

I think you are starting to crack under the pressure gmax.
I'm surprised you're even posting in a #REKT thread lol.

No, he's not. He made a great point and your counter argument is 'you're starting to crack under pressure'. 

[Fatman3001]

I think Sgbett responded to this propaganda strategy of yours well:

HI BETT YOU ARE VERY INTEGRITY AND MUCH WISDOM

WHY THANK YOU VERITAS IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU HERE, YOU ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENCE

Baaaahaaaahaaaa!!! I give up, that's too funny!

HI BETT YOU ARE VERY INTEGRITY AND MUCH WISDOM

WHY THANK YOU VERITAS IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU HERE, YOU ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENCE

No different from when my mom tells me that I'm beautiful.

Hmmmm.... But?.... Your mom??.....oh well, bitcoiners.

[sgbett]

I think Sgbett responded to this propaganda strategy of yours well:

HI BETT YOU ARE VERY INTEGRITY AND MUCH WISDOM

WHY THANK YOU VERITAS IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU HERE, YOU ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENCE

Never go full LambChop

[Carlton Banks]

is that a Josh Zerlan joke, bett? Well done for searching my post history so hard; Cartman's Tea Party is a recycled Zerlan joke 

[VeritasSapere]

I found this analogy to be simple:

Your 1GB hard drive is almost full, you have 2 options:

1. Buy a 2GB hard drive to replace the old hard drive
2. Buy another 1GB hard drive, and a RAID controller and set up a Raid 0 array, so that the Raid software will move 40% of the data from your old hard drive to new drive , so it becomes not full again. Then you have total 2GB of space in your new array, which functionality wise equal to a 2GB hard drive

I think any normal people will just go for the first option, only geeks and technical interested guy will try the second approach, and eventually many of them will give up on the second setup because it is just too complex to implement and maintain, and a Raid 0 will have higher risk of failure, it does not worth the effort

I do not think they even sell two Gigabyte hard drives anymore. Even eight terabyte hard drives are relatively inexpensive. An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

Though good trick with the Raid setup, might be easier then syncing from scratch or downloading a bootstrap. I do think running full nodes today is already restricted to geeks and technical interested guys. Since most non technical people do not even have desktop computers anymore, most people use laptops and tablets now instead. I think the vast majority of people will just end up using SPV wallets, it is how I introduce Bitcoin to non technical people today after all, since everyone does have a smartphone.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

[CuntChocula]

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

[VeritasSapere]

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

Yeah, it essentially doubles throughput. This will make a huge practical difference in terms of adoption over the next few years. Since not allowing the blocks to fill up does allow for a better user experience, while maintaining the reliability we have all grown used to.

[CuntChocula]

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

Yeah, it essentially doubles throughput. This will make a huge practical difference in terms of adoption over the next few years.

Oh, I agree that it's better than nothing, but in a futile sort of way. I mean, if you don't count on Bitcoin's userbase >doubling in 6 years...

[Lauda]

I do not think they even sell two Gigabyte hard drives anymore. Even eight terabyte hard drives are relatively inexpensive. An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Your approach: Let me just pick out the first and cheapest 8 TB HDD, ignore all other costs of running a node including the high failure rate of these disks, and say 'you will be able to store the entire blockchain for [enter random number that I just made up] years'. I dislike this.

Since most non technical people do not even have desktop computers anymore, most people use laptops and tablets now instead. I think the vast majority of people will just end up using SPV wallets, it is how I introduce Bitcoin to non technical people today after all, since everyone does have a smartphone.

SPV wallets are horrible when you consider what Bitcoin stands for. Let me remind you: decentralized, trust-less. With SPV you are essentially trusting a 3rd party. However, I'm not trying to say that we should force everyone away from them. Just wanted to point out the situation.

[jonald_fyookball]

No, he's not. He made a great point and your counter argument is 'you're starting to crack under pressure'. 

Didn't seem that great to me.  (the spoon/fork comment was apropos).

He started with a false premise about the "block maximalists" and what their motives are.
I already stated my own opinions about what "big blockers" really want,
and that was the counter argument.

The 'cracking under pressure' was a tangential remark, not my argument,
you knucklehead.  

Half joking anyway about 'cracking' but his recent post history has been uncharacteristic.

[ATguy]

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

Yeah, it essentially doubles throughput. This will make a huge practical difference in terms of adoption over the next few years.

Oh, I agree that it's better than nothing, but in a futile sort of way. I mean, if you don't count on Bitcoin's userbase >doubling in 6 years...

2MB * 144 blocks per day * 365 days * 6 years = 0.63 TB

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale with onchain transanctions anyway, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

But keep posting FUD smallblockers in a atempt to hurt Bitcoin adoption as much as possible to help your goals whatever these are...

[Lauda]

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

This is "FUD". You're working under the assumption that: 1. The block size will remain at 2 MB for 6 years (while saying that 1 MB hurts adoption). 2. The HDD capacity is going to increase tenfold in 6 years? 3. This doesn't hurt decentralization. You obviously are not thinking properly because there are a lot of factors to consider.
What about new nodes? Good luck catching up with a 0.63 TB network on a raspberry PI. This is something that can not be left out (among other things). In other words, this does hurt decentralization and that is a fact. The question is just how much and is it negligible?

[VeritasSapere]

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

Yeah, it essentially doubles throughput. This will make a huge practical difference in terms of adoption over the next few years.

Oh, I agree that it's better than nothing, but in a futile sort of way. I mean, if you don't count on Bitcoin's userbase >doubling in 6 years...

2MB * 144 blocks per day * 365 days * 6 years = 0.63 TB

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

But keep posting FUD smallblockers in a atempt to hurt Bitcoin adoption as much as possible to help your goals whatever these are...

True, my math was a bit off there, must have missed a zero somewhere. Admittedly mathematics is not my strong point.

[VeritasSapere]

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

This is "FUD". You're working under the assumption that: 1. The block size will remain at 2 MB for 6 years (while saying that 1 MB hurts adoption). 2. The HDD capacity is going to increase tenfold in 6 years? 3. This doesn't hurt decentralization. You obviously are not thinking properly because there are a lot of factors to consider.
What about new nodes? Good luck catching up with a 0.63 TB network on a raspberry PI. This is something that can not be left out (among other things). In other words, this does hurt decentralization and that is a fact. The question is just how much and is it negligible?

To be clear I do not think we should restrict the throughput of the network so that people can continue to run full nodes on raspberry PI's. I do not think this was ever the intention for Bitcoin either. It is true that there is a balancing act here, and that decentralization is effected in different ways. However everything considered I think that increasing the blocksize will be better for decentralization overall compared to leaving it at one megabyte.

[CuntChocula]

... An eight terabyte hard drive will be able to store the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the next six years easily, and that is with a two megabyte blocksize limit.

http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Archive-Internal-Hard-Drive/dp/B00XS423SC

Assuming Bitcoin adoption is poor & we don't need to bump blocksize again. 2MB gives us what, ~6tps, and we're ~2 - 3tps now?

Yeah, it essentially doubles throughput. This will make a huge practical difference in terms of adoption over the next few years.

Oh, I agree that it's better than nothing, but in a futile sort of way. I mean, if you don't count on Bitcoin's userbase >doubling in 6 years...

2MB * 144 blocks per day * 365 days * 6 years = 0.63 TB

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

But keep posting FUD smallblockers in a atempt to hurt Bitcoin adoption as much as possible to help your goals whatever these are...

I think keeping the 1M block cap is suicidal. Which is not to say that doubling it is a solution. And not to imply that "smallblockers" do not have some valid points.
The price of storage devices is neither here nor there.
Miners don't currently mine empty blocks in hopes of keeping the blockchain trim & saving some HD space. Care to guess why they do it?
Care to guess how likely that shit is to become pandemic as the blocksize is raised?

[Fatman3001]

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

This is "FUD". You're working under the assumption that: 1. The block size will remain at 2 MB for 6 years (while saying that 1 MB hurts adoption). 2. The HDD capacity is going to increase tenfold in 6 years? 3. This doesn't hurt decentralization. You obviously are not thinking properly because there are a lot of factors to consider.
What about new nodes? Good luck catching up with a 0.63 TB network on a raspberry PI. This is something that can not be left out (among other things). In other words, this does hurt decentralization and that is a fact. The question is just how much and is it negligible?

Is this what you're fighting for?

Being able to run a node on a Raspberry Pi?

[Serious facepalm]

[bargainbin]

Because not all blocks can be full, we are looking for 0.5 TB in next 6 years when users will probably have 10-100 TB HDDs in 6 years. If someone really think a bit technically about it and dont spread the FUD about decentralization and how Bitcoin cant scale anyway with onchain transanctions, he would come to conclusion let scale onchain transanctions as much as possible to still keep decentralization - 0.5 TB HDD storage in next 6 years will not break decentralization, even 1TB or 2 TB in next 6 years will not break decentralization either .

This is "FUD". You're working under the assumption that: 1. The block size will remain at 2 MB for 6 years (while saying that 1 MB hurts adoption). 2. The HDD capacity is going to increase tenfold in 6 years? 3. This doesn't hurt decentralization. You obviously are not thinking properly because there are a lot of factors to consider.
What about new nodes? Good luck catching up with a 0.63 TB network on a raspberry PI. This is something that can not be left out (among other things). In other words, this does hurt decentralization and that is a fact. The question is just how much and is it negligible?

Is this what you're fighting for?

Being able to run a node on a Raspberry Pi?

[Serious facepalm]

The 21 Bitcoin PiTato is the first PiTato with native hardware and software support for the Bitcoin protocol.