2013 Pieter Wuille is not the same 2015 Pieter Blockstream Wuille

[jonald_fyookball]

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

I find the fact that Pieter suggested 100 MB blocksize limit
in 2013 very interesting.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3xg613/pieter_wuille_in_2013_bitcoin_is_a_consensus_of/

[Lauda]

A simple answer:

<sipa> Lauda: my understanding increased

You might not be implying this but someone else certainly will to discredit him by saying that the change of view is due to Blockstream (belief bias in this case).

[franky1]

he also wanted to regenerate a new allotment of 21million coins every 200 years

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

[steeev]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?

who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?

who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

I think the idea is that, being open source, talent will flock to the new implementation. I think.

[Lauda]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

Everything you do in your life will be because of Blockstream if you work there (according to some).

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?
who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

It does not have any innovations nor developments (if you're talking about Classic). There's no talent. There's a group of newbie developers (except Gavin who is 'passing by'). Aside from the added 1 MB it has nothing. SegWit is much better.

[steeev]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?

who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

I think the idea is that, being open source, talent will flock to the new implementation. I think.

so what are you actually saying ? that there are developers that were waiting for the 'magic' extra 1MB before they do anything ?

that, frankly,sounds like bullshit.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

^Agreed.

[shorena]

he also wanted to regenerate a new allotment of 21million coins every 200 years

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

Fun fact: [Satoshi] modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years.

I did NOT know that.

Its a joke. Satoshi was bad at writing code. BIP 42 is a joke on an overflow that would reset the block rewards.

[Shawshank]

he also wanted to regenerate a new allotment of 21million coins every 200 years

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

Fun fact: [Satoshi] modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years.

I did NOT know that.

That was an April Fools' story. The date in the BIP description is 2014-04-01.

[Amph]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?

who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

well it should welcome adoption in theory, at least a little bigger adoption, but in practice yes, it's nothign more than a fix of a bad thign about bitcoin, that was not even there at the beginning

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

he also wanted to regenerate a new allotment of 21million coins every 200 years

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

Fun fact: [Satoshi] modeled the monetary supply as 4 gold mines being discovered per mibillenium (1024 years), with equal intervals between them, each one being depleted over the course of 140 years.

I did NOT know that.

Its a joke. Satoshi was bad at writing code. BIP 42 is a joke on an overflow that would reset the block rewards.

Eck. Nerd humour.

[franky1]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?

who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

its stepping stones..

people want more transaction capacity so that the greedy miners dont keep increasing fee's due to only letting in firstclass transactions.
imagine it like a train with 4000 seats..
miners give 95% of seats to first class customers and then allow just 200 economy customers to stand in the aisle..
but if the train had 8000 seats, then the demand and desire to pay first class prices will drop as everyone can sit comfortable without delay or crowding..

because right now in 2016, even in 2017 and 2018.. transaction fee's are not in reality a proper income for miners anyway.. they dont care about the fee's for financial gain. to them its about a power struggle and excuses to not do their natural job of solving blocks which are paid for by the block reward. they wil find anyway to do the minimum.. and blame it on capacity rather than incompetance or lack of morals

so after the increase, when the capacity excuse gets mooted,  then the community can concentrate on other features of actual benefit, relaxed that miners are not pricing people out of using bitcoin.

another bandcamp want the capacity issue to continue to irritate people that way people will go running over to their liquid altcoin, leaving bitcoin destitute.. with transactions that cant be validated and a high transaction fee... unless your using their biased features..

so the main smart community just want a basic improvement. nothing singing or dancing. to then allow them to make proper features of actual benefit that wont be biased to one side or the other. features that any and all implementations will want to include.. rather then features only available to a few

[Sir Lagsalot]

2MB this, 2MB that, and blah blah Blockstream...

my question is, what innovations and developments does this thing have ?

who's the talent ?

1MB more ? is that it ?

its stepping stones..

people want more transaction capacity so that the greedy miners dont keep increasing fee's due to only letting in firstclass transactions.
imagine it like a train with 4000 seats..
miners give 95% of seats to first class customers and then allow just 200 economy customers to stand in the aisle..
but if the train had 8000 seats, then the demand and desire to pay first class prices will drop as everyone can sit comfortable without delay or crowding..

because right now in 2016, even in 2017 and 2018.. transaction fee's are not in reality a proper income for miners anyway.. they dont care about the fee's for financial gain. to them its about a power struggle and excuses to not do their natural job of solving blocks which are paid for by the block reward. they wil find anyway to do the minimum.. and blame it on capacity rather than incompetance or lack of morals

so after the increase, when the capacity excuse gets mooted,  then the community can concentrate on other features of actual benefit, relaxed that miners are not pricing people out of using bitcoin.

another bandcamp want the capacity issue to continue to irritate people that way people will go running over to their liquid altcoin, leaving bitcoin destitute.. with transactions that cant be validated and a high transaction fee... unless your using their biased features..

so the main smart community just want a basic improvement. nothing singing or dancing. to then allow them to make proper features of actual benefit that wont be biased to one side or the other. features that any and all implementations will want to include.. rather then features only available to a few

Let me get this straight: Asslic puts all the big, greedy miners in their place yet these same big, greedy miners are the ones supporting it? Your explanation is a trainsmash, try again.

[Windpower]

I don't think that the blocksize limit will change in he future. So this article really has no meaning to me. 

[Lauda]

I don't think that the blocksize limit will change in he future. So this article really has no meaning to me. 

Define 'in the future'. This could mean a lot of things, and eventually the block size will be increased (once the infrastructure is in place). The things that are debatable are 'when' and 'how much'.

I think the idea is that, being open source, talent will flock to the new implementation. I think.

so what are you actually saying ? that there are developers that were waiting for the 'magic' extra 1MB before they do anything ?

that, frankly,sounds like bullshit.

Inexperienced new talent might come to Bitcoin at any time. I don't think that someone is waiting for something like 'Classic' before they start contributing though. The team around 'Classic' is basically a group of newbies (except Gavin).