BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1115
|
|
January 28, 2016, 04:06:37 AM |
|
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?
|
Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
January 28, 2016, 06:00:13 AM |
|
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.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
January 28, 2016, 09:52:23 AM |
|
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
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
January 28, 2016, 10:17:51 AM |
|
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'.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
|
January 28, 2016, 10:32:38 AM |
|
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.
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
sgbett
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
|
|
January 28, 2016, 02:14:42 PM |
|
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
|
"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto*my posts are not investment advice*
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074
|
|
January 28, 2016, 02:21:22 PM |
|
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
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
VeritasSapere
|
|
January 28, 2016, 02:58:34 PM Last edit: January 28, 2016, 03:09:14 PM by 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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:08:55 PM |
|
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
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:10:49 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:18:24 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:26:30 PM |
|
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/B00XS423SCYour 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.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:28:49 PM |
|
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
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:47:19 PM Last edit: January 28, 2016, 03:59:29 PM by ATguy |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:56:02 PM |
|
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?
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
VeritasSapere
|
|
January 28, 2016, 03:58:41 PM Last edit: January 28, 2016, 04:38:24 PM by VeritasSapere |
|
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
|
|
January 28, 2016, 04:02:14 PM |
|
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
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
January 28, 2016, 04:03:05 PM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
|
January 28, 2016, 04:08:29 PM |
|
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]
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
bargainbin
|
|
January 28, 2016, 04:16:28 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|