ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[CIYAM]

We just need to increase the blocksize to keep up with demand, two megabyte blocks does not centralize the network like you claim, in my opinion having to rely on third parties to transact represents a much greater threat of centralization compared to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

Again - the guy who says he is not a "Classic Shill" just shows that he is.

I guess Satoshi must have been a "Classic Shill" as well then, since he was most certainly also what you would call a big blockist.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

So you do realise that if we had followed Satoshi's idea then Bitcoin would have actually failed because the number of txs could not be processed in 10 minutes (or don't you care about such facts)?

[thejaytiesto]

I will give it a shot, and it is very simple really, Bitcoin Classic is only proposing to increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That is not an exponential increase at all.

2,4,8,16,32,64,128...

As soon as you increase to 2 mb, it will fill up, and you have to increase it to 4, and it will fill up quickly again. If you give away too much space ,and dont emphasize the costs of that space (which represent actual harddisk space in someone else's PC) then people will just exploit this "free thing".

Imagine how many 1 satoshi transactions will be flooded in this limitless free space, just for joke or as an attack on the network.

We must stay economically conservative ,because hard disk space is scarce, and transaction fee's have to reflect this. Sorry my boy but bitcoin is not a socialist invention.


Then there is a huge risk with mandatory uppgrade:

1) Hard fork requires mandatory uppgrade, if you dont uppgrade you are not part of the (classic) network anymore
2) Let's imagine there is 100% consensus for classic, and everyone uppgrades, so bitcoin will exist as classic in the future
3) An undetected zero day exploit or bug exists in the new classic software
4) Everybody uppgrades because otherwise you cant run bitcoin anymore
5) Congratulations, you have just destroyed bitcoin in 10 minutes

Yes that is all it takes to bring bitcoin down, 1 shitty client, that is mandatory to use, and the entire network collapses.

Exactly. I wonder why it is so hard to get for those pesky big blockistas that keep twisting their arugments to fit their agenda.
As soon as you raise it to 2, you'll have a small amount of time of "relief", then you'll be forced to hard fork again and again and again... exposing the network to the inherent dangers of a hardfork infinitely.
Veritas doesn't also understand that LN doesn't increase any complexity for the end user, the end user is already using banking which will be more complex than a modern polished Bitcoin that we will have in the next 2/3 years, when I predict the end user experience will be way different than it is now, easy to use so even your mom can send transactions. So please stop this LN FUD and go back to la-la-land to another forum where you can discuss a decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions.

[Lauda]

I guess Satoshi must have been a "Classic Shill" as well then, since he was most certainly also what you would call a big blockist.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

So you do realise that if we had followed Satoshi's idea then Bitcoin would have actually failed because the number of txs could not be processed in 10 minutes (or don't you care about such facts)?

Veritas is a blind fool. He sees Satoshi as some kind of god and once you call him out on that he says that he "just agrees with his vision". Satoshi was not a good programmer (let's not talk about engineering) nor did he had the data that we have today. Actually, we should just leave him in peace. His words (from the past) about this debate don't really matter.

If you are a new user, you won't be able to mine any block in any meaningful time, so your only choice is to connect to any of the mining pools, and this is already the case today, mining has been separated from the full nodes client since years ago.

Nonsense. Just because you don't have the money to do that, that does not mean that somebody else doesn't.

Even if you are a new mining farm with enough R&D resources, you won't be able to construct 100MB block since there is usually only 1MB transaction every 10 minutes, maybe 5MB during peak. Unless you are an attacker intentionally construct huge blocks with lots of spamming transactions, you won't be able to construct a large block. But in that case the rest of the miners are rejecting such attacking blocks

In other words, having such a block size limit is stupid at best.

[VeritasSapere]

I will give it a shot, and it is very simple really, Bitcoin Classic is only proposing to increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That is not an exponential increase at all.

Exactly. I wonder why it is so hard to get for those pesky big blockistas that keep twisting their arugments to fit their agenda.
As soon as you raise it to 2, you'll have a small amount of time of "relief", then you'll be forced to hard fork again and again and again... exposing the network to the inherent dangers of a hardfork infinitely.
Veritas doesn't also understand that LN doesn't increase any complexity for the end user, the end user is already using banking which will be more complex than a modern polished Bitcoin that we will have in the next 2/3 years, when I predict the end user experience will be way different than it is now, easy to use so even your mom can send transactions. So please stop this LN FUD and go back to la-la-land to another forum where you can discuss a decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions.

Bitcoin does not have to compete with modern banking but alternative cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum. Lets say I do want to use the lighting network to transfer BTC with a friend, I suppose first I will have to choose what hub I would like to use, then I need to send my Bitcoin to that hub which will have a high transaction fee, unless I choose to keep my BTC locked up in one of these hubs more permanitly in which case you would not have control over your own private keys, however that hub needs to have connections with the hub my friend is using otherwise we can not transact, or I will have to wait at least twenty four hours before I can get my funds back in order to do this transaction, obviously paying the expensive transaction fee again in order to move my funds to a lighting hub that has connections with the person I want to transact with. This is what creates a centralization pressure, it would make sense to gravitate towards fewer and fewer hubs so that transacting can become more conveniant since then less connections between hubs are needed. That is not easier then simply just doing a direct Bitcoin transaction with my friend, I think you are living in "la-la-land" if you do not think this negatively impacts the user experience.

In regards to having a "decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions" that is possible, and that is exactly the type of cryptocurrency that Bitcoin will be out competed and obsolesced by if the blocksize limit is not increased.

[exstasie]

Yeah it is pretty simple really. A crippled Bitcoin can not compete with alternative cryptocurrencies that can scale their blockchains directly

Bitcoin is crippled? Don't look like it. Easy to talk about "scaling" alts that nobody uses, LOL.

in regards to thinking LN is the solution to all problems, it most definitely is not especially considering that there are not even any decentralized solutions to routing between the different hubs

Surprise surprise, this retarded troll is opining on things when he hasn't even read the whitepaper.

You might think that adding all of this complexion and cost in the user experience is a good thing, but it most certainly is not. Nothing beats just being able to transact directly on a blockchain to transfer value between peers.

Cool story. This isn't 2010 when there were no users and little incentive to attack the blockchain. As block subsidy drops, incentive to attack increases. You either pay for the security of decentralization, or your free transactions force nodes off the network. And no, your cloud Sybil Classic nodes are not a replacement for actual decentralized nodes run by different people.

Turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for the lighting network would just be recreating part of the current financial system, becoming what Bitcoin was meant to counter in the first place.

Right, scalable trustless P2P protocols are the enemy. And building TCP on top of IPv4 destroyed IPv4, right? You don't know fucking shit about broadcast networks you retarded dolt. You cling to this idea of "onchain=best" but you have no basis to speak on what you don't understand.

We just need to increase the blocksize to keep up with demand, two megabyte blocks does not centralize the network like you claim, in my opinion having to rely on third parties to transact represents a much greater threat of centralization compared to just increasing the blocksize to two megabytes.

I agree, relying on third parties to transact in a trustless P2P manner -- just like using nodes onchain to validate transactions -- is a huge threat. You idiot. Nice how you don't bring any numbers/risk simulations/discussions of tradeoffs, you just state "oh yeah, this shit is safe." And then the dynamic blocksize switch coded by a few retards (Classic) is going to go off without a hitch, too? Just 2MB? I think not.

On chain transactions where always how Bitcoin was meant to operate

LN doesn't end onchain transactions, so moot point.

I am not against off chain solutions, I am just against crippling the Bitcoin network in order to "force" everyone to use off chain solutions.

Yeah the $0.04 fees I've been paying per transaction are fucking crippling.

Even when Satoshi was still around people criticized this aspect, many engineers and computer scientists thought that this idea of all transactions being recorded on a shared ledger to be ridiculous.

False dichotomy. It is not "this or that." Satoshi coded payment channels into the original bitcoin; it's clear you know nothing about it.

But that is what Bitcoin is, I understand that many people do not believe in this vision, it is clear that Core has diverged from this original vision.

The only thing that's clear here is that you don't know what the fuck youre talking about, and think that long-winded posts by a retard will convince anyone.

But I do still believe in it, and I would like to see the experiment be continued. If anything it should be the people that do not believe in this original vision that should move to alternative currencies instead of trying to change Bitcoin to conform to this alternative vision.

Problem with that is you argue to remove consensus rules, therefore YOU are forking off from OUR network. That's how consensus rules work, or were you confused about that too? Go ahead and no, we aren't coming with you.

Fundamentally I believe technological growth will keep up with adoption

Great, let's base the protocol's future on what some retard thinks is going to happen.

even if it does not we should still scale Bitcoin as much as technology allows

How does increasing block size scale anything? Explain that for us so everyone can see how retarded you are.

nobody can predict the future, who are you to say that this will definitely not work

You idiot. You argue to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to prove that it will work. Including your dynamic block size bullshit coded by a small handful of wingnuts shunned by the whole community.

it depends on the relative rate of adoption and technological growth, both being unknowns. I think many here are guilty of the engineers nirvana fallacy. Which is that if Bitcoin can not scale to VISA levels today we should not scale Bitcoin directly at all, I believe this is deeply flawed.

You saying "nirvana fallacy" every 10 posts is not an excuse to end all discussion about controversial changes that you hope to force on the rest of users. Even if 75% were enough for miners (it's not), it says nothing about all the users telling you to fuck yourself and fork off.

Go ahead and see what happens. You won't because Classic/Unlimited are completely helpless without Core. All they can do is fork Core's work and take it as their own. Good luck with that after you assholes fork off.

[thejaytiesto]

...
Once LN kicks in everyone will use LN and few will care to use on-chain, because LN transaction is still a real bitcoin transaction ...

...until it isn't.
US$ transactions were once gold transactions, but once US$ kicked in, everyone started using US$ and few cared when US$ got decoupled from gold.

You just proved LN haters don't have a clue how it works to compare it to gold->dollar... yeah totally the same.

I will give it a shot, and it is very simple really, Bitcoin Classic is only proposing to increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That is not an exponential increase at all.

Exactly. I wonder why it is so hard to get for those pesky big blockistas that keep twisting their arugments to fit their agenda.
As soon as you raise it to 2, you'll have a small amount of time of "relief", then you'll be forced to hard fork again and again and again... exposing the network to the inherent dangers of a hardfork infinitely.
Veritas doesn't also understand that LN doesn't increase any complexity for the end user, the end user is already using banking which will be more complex than a modern polished Bitcoin that we will have in the next 2/3 years, when I predict the end user experience will be way different than it is now, easy to use so even your mom can send transactions. So please stop this LN FUD and go back to la-la-land to another forum where you can discuss a decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions.

Bitcoin does not have to compete with modern banking but alternative cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin does not exist in a vacuum. Lets say I do want to use the lighting network to transfer BTC with a friend, I suppose first I will have to choose what hub I would like to use, then I need to send my Bitcoin to that hub which will have a high transaction fee, unless I choose to keep my BTC locked up in one of these hubs more permanitly in which case you would not have control over your own private keys, however that hub needs to have connections with the hub my friend is using otherwise we can not transact, or I will have to wait at least twenty four hours before I can get my funds back in order to do this transaction, obviously paying the expensive transaction fee again in order to move my funds to a lighting hub that has connections with the person I want to transact with. This is what creates a centralization pressure, it would make sense to gravitate towards fewer and fewer hubs so that transacting can become more conveniant since then less connections between hubs are needed. That is not easier then simply just doing a direct Bitcoin transaction with my friend, I think you are living in "la-la-land" if you do not think this negatively impacts the user experience.

In regards to having a "decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions" that is possible, and that is exactly the type of cryptocurrency that Bitcoin will be out competed and obsolesced by if the blocksize limit is not increased.

You are complaining about LN when we are still at archaic levels of development, give it some time the thing isn't even properly out yet. All of that will be built to make it as easy and as seamless for the end user as possible eventually.
It's like complaining about the internet in 1995. We are still TINY (6 billion marketcap is nothing). This is still the early ages.

In regards to having a "decentralized coin with global onchain fast and cheap transactions" that is possible, and that is exactly the type of cryptocurrency that Bitcoin will be out competed and obsolesced by if the blocksize limit is not increased.

This is nonsense sorry. You can't have PoW coin (best method we have is PoW, the rest are not as solid) backed by the strongest computational power on earth that allows people to run nodes on their bedroom computers while having VISA level of transaction per seconds.. how many times does this fact has to be stated?

If Bitcoin is a mainstream success, people will come faster than technology evolves to guarantee people can run nodes on their bedrooms which is a basic premise for a solid decentralized network. You will soon be forced to raise the blocksize to a size high enough to make people that are able to run nodes on their computers at home today, to not be able to run those. In other words: centralization of nodes starts, and then we end up with centralized mining and centralized nodes.. in other words Paypal.

[VeritasSapere]

If you are a new user, you won't be able to mine any block in any meaningful time, so your only choice is to connect to any of the mining pools, and this is already the case today, mining has been separated from the full nodes client since years ago.

Nonsense. Just because you don't have the money to do that, that does not mean that somebody else doesn't.

I did a calculation recently where I figured it would cost a minimum of six million dollars in order to carry out a viable solo mining operation. Do you seriously believe that someone who invests six million dollars into a mining operation would not be able to afford to run their own full node in a datacenter anywhere in the world? Even with two megabyte blocks the cost of running a full node is extremely low compared to the rest of such an operation, for everyone else there are the mining pools, the great egalitarian innovation that allows everyone to mine without having to run a full node and enabling everyone to be able to profit without excessive variance at a small scale.

Even if you are a new mining farm with enough R&D resources, you won't be able to construct 100MB block since there is usually only 1MB transaction every 10 minutes, maybe 5MB during peak. Unless you are an attacker intentionally construct huge blocks with lots of spamming transactions, you won't be able to construct a large block. But in that case the rest of the miners are rejecting such attacking blocks

In other words, having such a block size limit is stupid at best.

Agreed, which is why I think a hard block size limit is not even necessary, which is why my preferred implementation is Bitcoin Unlimited. Though many people are obviously still very uncomfortable with this idea so Bitcoin Classic certainly does represent a more conservative choice.

[hdbuck]

[VeritasSapere]

Talk about fear mongering, if we increase the blocksize to two megabytes Bitcoin will become paypal 2.0! Your rhetoric is utterly ridiculous, especially considering that this was always the intention for Bitcoin, if anything not increasing the blocksize is turning Bitcoin into something else.

Furthermore we should not be betting the future of Bitcoin on vaporware that has not even be developed yet, a solution to decentralized routing does not even exist yet and it might not ever be developed. I also do not see the problem with increasing the blocksize now and when these off chain solutions are developed everyone will be free to use these off chain solutions, and if the blocksize does not need to be increased again then problem solved right?

It is irresponsible allowing the network to become overloaded like this, furthermore fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin is not a conservative choice, it is a radical choice, one with much risk, and there are many people like myself that did sign up to the original vision of Bitcoin that are now leaving because they do not agree with this path.

You might win this battle for Bitcoin, but if you do you will end up with a small, niche and crippled Bitcoin that can not compete with the many alternative cryptocurrencies out there that are already technically superior to Bitcoin.

[hdbuck]

riiight...

as if the genesis block was about commercial banking instead of TBTF bail out...

get your quantitative block easing back up you poopoo mr political philosopher

[thejaytiesto]

Talk about fear mongering, if we increase the blocksize to two megabytes Bitcoin will become paypal 2.0! Your rhetoric is utterly ridiculous, especially considering that this was always the intention for Bitcoin, if anything not increasing the blocksize is turning Bitcoin into something else.

Furthermore we should not be betting the future of Bitcoin on vaporware that has not even be developed yet, a solution to decentralized routing does not exist yet and it might not ever be developed. I also do not see the problem with increasing the blocksize now and when these off chain solutions are developed everyone will be free to use these off chain solutions, and if the blocksize does not need to be increased again then problem solved right?

It is irresponsible allowing the network to become overloaded like this, furthermore fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin is not a conservative choice, it is a radical choice, one with much risk, and there are many people like myself that did sign up to the original vision of Bitcoin that are now leaving because they do not agree with this path.

Read again, I said VISA level transactions.
If you raise the blocksize to 2mb, you solve shit nothing, you are just going to be able to pay sightly smaller fees temporally, in the exchange of lossing nodes like mine which run on modest hardware... wow, fantastic. Is this scaling to you?
LN is not vaporware, there's people working hard on the thing, and you better hope it works because it's the only way we are going to be able to scale to any relevant amount of transaction per second in mainstream usage terms, because by raising the blocksize, in the grand scheme of things we aren't solving anything. Mainstream usage is uncompatible with all-on-chain transactions+decentralized network.

The network works and it's not bloated, that's just nonsense. I just did like 4 transactions today and I had 0 problems. I would rather wait for SegWit and see how it goes, then see if we can keep it like that until LN, which we should.

I hope that someday some coin reaches Bitcoin level of adoption, it's going to be a show watching them struggle to get anything done. It's easy to talk about altcoins no one uses.

[hdbuck]

Shitcoins' killer app is to strip n00bs of their bitcoins

[VeritasSapere]

You are not listening to what I am saying, thinking that we must have those transactions levels now or we should not scale Bitcoin directly at all is an engineers nirvana fallacy. Increasing the blocksize to two megabytes doubling the transaction throughput is a huge improvement. This is the only way that Bitcoin can scale, since off chain solutions do not scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly at all. We only need to increase the blocksize as much in order to keep up with demand, we should both be very happy if the blocksize did reach two megabytes since that would imply we have almost doubled the adoption of Bitcoin, it is quite likely that we will not even need to increase the blocksize faster then technological progress.

Most alternative cryptocurrencies already have far greater transactional capacity then Bitcoin. Dash already has 8x the capacity of Bitcoin which can easily be increased, Ethereum has more then six times the capacity and Monero has an adaptive blocksize. And there are several cryptocurrencies that have a transactional capacities in the hundreds of TPS, whereas Bitcoin can only do around 3-7 TPS. When this limit is reached Bitcoin becomes more expensive and less reliable, when that happens people simply move to alternative cryptocurrencies that do function in the way that Bitcoin used to in order to transact, directly, quickly, cheaply and easily.

[Lauda]

I did a calculation recently where I figured it would cost a minimum of six million dollars in order to carry out a viable solo mining operation.

Show me these calculations. Additionally, you don't need a 'viable' operation; you need 1 block.

Do you seriously believe that someone who invests six million dollars into a mining operation would not be able to afford to run their own full node in a datacenter anywhere in the world?

I never said this.

Agreed, which is why I think a hard block size limit is not even necessary, which is why my preferred implementation is Bitcoin Unlimited.

If it truly wasn't necessary, everyone would either jump to BU and/or remove the limit in the current implementation. In other words, it is necessary.

[exstasie]

Talk about fear mongering, if we increase the blocksize to two megabytes Bitcoin will become paypal 2.0!

Firstly, address the arguments rather than dismissing them. Data, risk analysis please. All you do is write perpetual fluff.

Secondly, address that Classic, XT and Unlimited are not intended to merely increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That's a blatant lie and you know it.

Your rhetoric is utterly ridiculous, especially considering that this was always the intention for Bitcoin, if anything not increasing the blocksize is turning Bitcoin into something else.

Learn how networks and consensus protocols work. It's exactly the opposite -- you change the rules, you turn it into something else. I don't care -- fork off. Go ahead.

Furthermore we should not be betting the future of Bitcoin on vaporware that has not even be developed yet, a solution to decentralized routing does not even exist yet and it might not ever be developed.

Ah, the vaporware argument. Let's stop working on groundbreaking ideas because they haven't been fully developed yet. Brilliant. Check out the progress on github on the half dozen open source implementations of Lightning.

I also do not see the problem with increasing the blocksize now and when these off chain solutions are developed everyone will be free to use these off chain solutions, and if the blocksize does not need to be increased again then problem solved right?

Cool, we've heard quite a lot about your feelings. And that's about it. Run along now, child.

It is irresponsible allowing the network to become overloaded like this, furthermore fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin is not a conservative choice, it is a radical choice, one with much risk, and there are many people like myself that did sign up to the original vision of Bitcoin that are now leaving because they do not agree with this path.

Overloaded like what? I've never had a transaction delayed past the second block. I pay $.04 on all recent transactions. This is the lone global ledger -- I don't care what you signed up for, but this is the lone network. Fork off you want. Nobody stopping you.

You might win this battle for Bitcoin, but if you do you will end up with a small, niche and crippled Bitcoin that can not compete with the many alternative cryptocurrencies out there that are already technically superior to Bitcoin.

Talk about fear mongering. You fucking asshole.

[VeritasSapere]

I did a calculation recently where I figured it would cost a minimum of six million dollars in order to carry out a viable solo mining operation.

Show me these calculations. Additionally, you don't need a 'viable' operation; you need 1 block.

I would not consider finding one block lets say over the course of a year to be a viable mining operation, that would be more like gambling. Look I am a miner myself, when you invest a lot of money into equipment you would not want to gamble that investment away because of variance.

I can do another conservative estimate for you now, the six million dollar figure I got because that would be the cost of ordering three containers off Bitfury. But because those exact numbers are unknown I will use the latest antminer S7 instead, not that I think those machines are even a good bet right now.

I would argue that you would need at least 0.5% of the share of the total hashrate in order to solo mine. This is a very conservative estimate, considering that I am not comfortable with mining with pools below two percent, the variance is just to high, it is painful not to find any blocks for days, especially when you are still paying for the electricity and you still need to reach your ROI.

Here is the antminer with a power supply:
https://bitmaintech.com/productDetail.htm?pid=000201603211525448720q7Dtj890660
https://bitmaintech.com/productDetail.htm?pid=000201505040743496917U7kGsCm0694

So that would come to a total of 742 dollars, for a single unit, each one of these units can do around 4.73ths according to Bitmain, it usually is a bit lower then what they advertise lol. now 0.5% of 1134514353 GH/s is 56725717.65 GH/s. if one antminer is 4730 GH/s then it would take 11993 antminers in order to gain such a network share which would cost a total of 8898806 dollars, which is actually closer to 8.8 million dollars, now this does not include electricity cost, infrastructure and building cost. Along with security and other staff to actually operate a Bitcoin mine at this scale.

Do you seriously believe that someone who invests six million dollars into a mining operation would not be able to afford to run their own full node in a datacenter anywhere in the world?

I never said this.

You implied it by saying that the increased cost for running a full node increases mining centralization when as you can see the cost of setting up a solo mining operation is so high that the cost of running a full node would certainly not deter such an operation. The truth is that most miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining, which is why increasing the cost of running a full node does not effect mining centralization.

Agreed, which is why I think a hard block size limit is not even necessary, which is why my preferred implementation is Bitcoin Unlimited.

If it truly wasn't necessary, everyone would either jump to BU and/or remove the limit in the current implementation. In other words, it is necessary.

I hope you can realize how flawed this thinking is, just because the majority believes one thing it does not make it true, there are plenty of historical examples that show this principle does not hold, furthermore it is not necessarily that clear to know what the majority is thinking, which is a dilemma I am sure the miners also face when making the decision what rules to change or adopt, this is both true for an increased blocksize and segwit.

[VeritasSapere]

Talk about fear mongering, if we increase the blocksize to two megabytes Bitcoin will become paypal 2.0!

Firstly, address the arguments rather than dismissing them. Data, risk analysis please. All you do is write perpetual fluff.

What you are doing is here is much worse, at least try to be civil. I am addressing peoples arguments, you are giving people the false impression that I am not. You are welcome to show me data and risk analysis that shows that a two megabyte blocksize limit is unsafe, I am familiar with most of the literature on the subject.

Secondly, address that Classic, XT and Unlimited are not intended to merely increase the blocksize to two megabytes. That's a blatant lie and you know it.

Check the roadmap for your self, check the code. The Bitcoin Classic fork only intents to increase the blocksize to two megabytes, nothing more, increasing it again would require another hard fork. This is why hard forks are good they act as a check against developer power.

Sure they have a more long term roadmap which includes an adaptive blocksize but that is much further down the road, and we can always choose to run a different client, even just switch back to Core if that is what you want.

Bitcoin Unlimited on the other hand is all about giving everyone the freedom of choice, Bitcoin Unlimited simply allows everyone to set their own blocksize limit, it is founded on this conception of freedom, since anyone can make these changes to the client anyway, Bitcoin Unlimited just makes this easy in an accessible interface. You could even set it to have a smaller blocksize limit, effectively decreasing the blocksize limit if that is what people wanted, it facilitates giving people more freedom of choice, where decisions like the blocksize limit do not need to be made by development team, but through an emergent consensus instead.

Personally I do think the blocksize limit should always be above the average transaction volume, like it has been for all of Bitcoins history until recently, that was always the intention of the blocksize limit as an anti spam protection measure, using it to restrict the transactional volume of the networks turns it into a economic policy tool. That is besides the point however, this is about reaching consensus, a two megabyte blocksize limit is something that everyone should be able to agree with, compromise you know, that is what Classic represents.

Your rhetoric is utterly ridiculous, especially considering that this was always the intention for Bitcoin, if anything not increasing the blocksize is turning Bitcoin into something else.

Learn how networks and consensus protocols work. It's exactly the opposite -- you change the rules, you turn it into something else. I don't care -- fork off. Go ahead.

Actually not increasing the blocksize should be considered the change, and I will fork off if Bitcoin continues refusing to change, be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore we should not be betting the future of Bitcoin on vaporware that has not even be developed yet, a solution to decentralized routing does not even exist yet and it might not ever be developed.

Ah, the vaporware argument. Let's stop working on groundbreaking ideas because they haven't been fully developed yet. Brilliant. Check out the progress on github on the half dozen open source implementations of Lightning.

Not increasing the blocksize when it is needed because of alternative developments that have not even been developed yet, which we do not even know if they will ever work in a trully decentralized manner, I would not consider a wise strategy.

It is irresponsible allowing the network to become overloaded like this, furthermore fundamentally changing the economic policy of Bitcoin is not a conservative choice, it is a radical choice, one with much risk, and there are many people like myself that did sign up to the original vision of Bitcoin that are now leaving because they do not agree with this path.

Overloaded like what? I've never had a transaction delayed past the second block. I pay $.04 on all recent transactions. This is the lone global ledger -- I don't care what you signed up for, but this is the lone network. Fork off you want. Nobody stopping you.

It was overloaded, I think two weeks ago now or so. Every time this happens people will leave for alternative cryptocurrencies and fiat.

Whenever the network does gets congested people leave and different use cases are pushed out, demand will stay aligned with the artificial scarcity enforced through the blocksize limit. This process can continue until Bitcoin is not the dominant cryptocurrency anymore, even then you might be able to say that the blocksize never needed to be increased, while cryptocurrencies that are willing to scale will overtake Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

I would not consider finding one block lets say over the course of a year to be a viable mining operation, that would be more like gambling. Look I am a miner myself, when you invest a lot of money into equipment you would not want to gamble that investment away because of variance.

That's not the point of my post. I was referring to the other guy initially where he said that others wouldn't accept your big block if the limit was 100 MB. My point is, you can't know whether someone is malicious or not in this case and thus they'd need to create a single (maxed out) block to cause severe damage.

You implied it.

No.

I hope you can realize how flawed this thinking is, just because the majority believes one thing it does not make it true, there are plenty of historical examples that show this principle does not hold, furthermore it is not necessarily that clear to know what the majority is thinking, which is a dilemma I am sure the miners also face when making the decision what rules to change or adopt, this is both true for an increased blocksize and segwit.

2 engineers say B is the answer, 98 engineers say A is the answer, therefore B must be right. Nice logic Veritas.

[iCEBREAKER]

The global average does not make any sense. You need only 7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized, and rest of the slow internet user can just use SPV nodes. And you can already do it today. In 5 years, those full nodes can be upgraded to 10Gbps

You are the one who isn't making sense. I have no idea why ICEBREAKER even lets you spread nonsense here. People who run nodes don't really have an incentive (aside from businesses and miners?) to spend even more money on them. Even if we disregard the cost in advanced countries, exactly how do you plan that node operators in third world countries to upgrade to 1 Gbps (not to mention 10 Gbps)? Oh right, they don't matter for you (IIRC you mentioned the network being okay with 100 nodes; I could be mistaken).

I let johnyj spread nonsense because that creates a teachable moment.

For example, his nonsensical assertion about the network only needing "7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized" provies an ideal opportunity for educating him about the role DIVERSITY plays in a DIVERSE/diffuse/defensible/resilient (AKA "decentralized") network.

Thanks to his nonsense, we now have the chance to point out that limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property).

The Visa-killing 1000tps-on-Layer-One thing johnyj wants isn't Bitcoin.  Bitcoin lives in diverse niches, deep in the jungles of Asia and swamps of Florida; it cannot be shut down by a few phones calls to some (uninvested/unintersted) NETOPS guys at a few dozen COLO facilities.

What johnyj wants is something I call CoinbaseCoin.  CoinbaseCoin is what we'd get if we prematurely (IE prior to post-fiat Cryptopia) restrict Bitcoin to data centers, ignoring the engineering requirement it be above the law.

When Bitcoin has accomplished its primary mission of disrupting central banking and ensuring Chancellors may no longer consider bailouts for TBTF banks, then we may relegate most full nodes to data centers.

But until we usher in the Golden Age of Satoshi, full nodes must be kept in places where the long arm of the BIS cannot easily reach.

[VeritasSapere]

I would not consider finding one block lets say over the course of a year to be a viable mining operation, that would be more like gambling. Look I am a miner myself, when you invest a lot of money into equipment you would not want to gamble that investment away because of variance.

That's not the point of my post. I was referring to the other guy initially where he said that others wouldn't accept your big block if the limit was 100 MB. My point is, you can't know whether someone is malicious or not in this case and thus they'd need to create a single (maxed out) block to cause severe damage.

You are missing an important point here, which is that we are operating of the presumption that the majority of miners will not act maliciously. After all if this presumption was not true then Bitcoin would be fundamentally flawed anyway.

I hope you can realize how flawed this thinking is, just because the majority believes one thing it does not make it true, there are plenty of historical examples that show this principle does not hold, furthermore it is not necessarily that clear to know what the majority is thinking, which is a dilemma I am sure the miners also face when making the decision what rules to change or adopt, this is both true for an increased blocksize and segwit.

2 engineers say B is the answer, 98 engineers say A is the answer, therefore B must be right. Nice logic Veritas.

I would say that we should think for ourselves, listen to the arguments of both sides and make up our own minds. I would argue that it is your authoritarian logic that is flawed.