Refuting the 5 arguments of 1mb supporters

[hl5460]

Mr. Jiang, operator of btc/ltc mining pool, released an article on refuting the 5 arguments of 1mb supporters.
He asked the Chinese community to support 2MB plan.
~2.5kviews and 46 comments so far.


【比特币面临关键选择】恳请所有持币人支持2MB扩容
http://8btc.com/thread-28282-1-1.html

[Undermood]

Good initiative. But it is English board! How could we understand the provided Chinese web page?

[Lauda]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

[hl5460]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

The author of that article sees the LN or sidechain will be rendered useless if blocksize continues to expand.

[Visdome]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

[DarkHyudrA]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

The average user won't will start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

[Blind Legs Parker]

The average user won't start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

Indeed, they will not. But on the other side, as long as this question remains unsolved, bitcoin appears very unstable from the outside, and this is prohibiting people from starting to use it.

[helloeverybody]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

The average user won't will start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

I dont think its the average user that we need to worry about right now, The blocksize debate is a worry for all of the current community. I for one dont have full faith in bitcoin until this is sorted. A lot opf people im sure are on the fence untill this issue is sorted out correctly.

[Denker]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

The average user won't will start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

I aboslutely agree with you.
Just rasing the limit to 2MB will not make the average people rushing into Bitcoin.That's totally wrong to believe this way.
I believe crypto currencies will stay as a niche for at least the next 5-10 years. And to be honest I would be totally fine with that as we have hopefully enough time to develop the network properly.
Just have a look how long it took the internet to really take off.Bitcoin and crypto currencies might be a bit faster, but not much imo.

[franky1]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

firstly it said "likely long term".. as the preferential... "possible forever" as the worse case scenario...
so the assumption is long term...

secondly
"to become a large settlement network similar between banks" .. emphasis on 'similar'
its not saying banks will use bitcoin. its not saying anything close to that.
but if things are not sorted. then the LN network channels set up but retailers and exchanges to handle offchain transactions will be the institutions that finally push the transactions onto the blockchain when they close the channel.
so the MAJORITY of transactions would be done by retailers/exchanges signing transactions to settle customer funds.
just like how banks do batch processing of transfers on behalf of the customer

i do love how you cherry pick words to debunk everyone thats not segwit happy..
it may actually be benefit to you to instead of being hostile to people who are not ready for segwit. to instead of attacking them and call them loonies.. to learn how segwit actually performs and TEACH them the fundementals.
without pretending you know it all but secretly run to IRC, or say you wont learn unless someone pays you.

because it seems more and more obvious that you need to learn segwit along with the rest of the community

the best way to get onboard it to be helpful.. not to carry a whip and shout get on board or STFU. so its in your benefit to learn the pro's and cons and change your mindset from a debunker to someone that can actually help..

no where in your posts do you have any "technical arguments" either. so please stop all the hate, then people will stop hating you

[Windpower]

As much as people want to increase that Bitcoin blocksize limit, it is just never going to happen. Deal with it.

[franky1]

As much as people want to increase that Bitcoin blocksize limit, it is just never going to happen. Deal with it.

it will happen.. either by people sick of segwit bait and switch.. or finally giving into segwit bait and switch

[Amph]

As much as people want to increase that Bitcoin blocksize limit, it is just never going to happen. Deal with it.

with a correct pump by miners the value of bitcoin can easily grow in the range of 1k-10k without any single increase in the adoption

that's why miners do not care much about the limit, but to reach the real adoptino in the end they will adopt the new limit, maybe if many other citizen in chinas begin to embrace bitcoin

[NorrisK]

The average user won't start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

Indeed, they will not. But on the other side, as long as this question remains unsolved, bitcoin appears very unstable from the outside, and this is prohibiting people from starting to use it.

This is probably the most important issue. The general people don't care at all about block size limits, they just want something they can easily use and trust.

Trust in the system won't happen if different camps remain fighting over technical details.

[Amph]

As much as people want to increase that Bitcoin blocksize limit, it is just never going to happen. Deal with it.

with a correct pump by miners the value of bitcoin can easily grow in the range of 1k-10k without any single increase in the adoption

that's why miners do not care much about the limit, but to reach the real adoptino in the end they will adopt the new limit, maybe if many other citizen in chinas begin to embrace bitcoin

Why miners want to pump bitcoin price? In fact, they sell some of their bitcoin for maintenance cost & will sell most of them when price rise up.
Miners only adopt new limit when all blocks are full because they don't want see people dump & left bitcoin because just all blocks are full.

how why? isn't it obvious? chinese farm run 60%+ of the network, do you think they will let their 500 peta of hash worth nothing in the case the value will remain the same and the halving will kill their profit?

it's a business for them, they will keep it alive forever, because it is damn profitable for them

[franky1]

how why? isn't it obvious? chinese farm run 60%+ of the network, do you think they will let their 500 peta of hash worth nothing in the case the value will remain the same and the halving will kill their profit?

it's a business for them, they will keep it alive forever, because it is damn profitable for them

try not to tar all miners with the same brush, by suggesting different companies should to be considered as 1 entity based solely on the country.... is slight racism.
and by the way antpool is in iceland, bitfury is international.. the only 2 big names purely/majorly in china are BTCC and f2pool which amount to about 35%.

but even so.. why does a country so diverse as 1.3billion people with differing views and independent opinions be deemed as an attempt to collude?
was there any crying when 80% of the hashrate was in america a few years back?

i think throwing miners into one box based solely on location, without evidence of actual collusion.. is trying to mis-represent things

[Amph]

how why? isn't it obvious? chinese farm run 60%+ of the network, do you think they will let their 500 peta of hash worth nothing in the case the value will remain the same and the halving will kill their profit?

it's a business for them, they will keep it alive forever, because it is damn profitable for them

try not to tar all miners with the same brush, by suggesting different companies should to be considered as 1 entity based solely on the country.... is slight racism.
and by the way antpool is in iceland, bitfury is international.. the only 2 big names purely/majorly in china are BTCC and f2pool which amount to about 35%.

but even so.. why does a country so diverse as 1.3billion people with differing views and independent opinions be deemed as an attempt to collude?
was there any crying when 80% of the hashrate was in america a few years back?

i think throwing miners into one box based solely on location, without evidence of actual collusion.. is trying to mis-represent things

i was talking about farms not pools, but i was not arguing about the fact that they own 60%, i don't find that centralization

i was just trying to destroy the whole argmument, of bitcoin going to zero for no real reason, i firmly convinced that big farms right now are involved in price manipulation, to allow margin on their future profit against the halving

[BillyBobZorton]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended. If you raise blocksize to 2MB right now you are lossing a node cause I cant keep up with the amount of gigabites the block size is going to take on my hardware.

[jonald_fyookball]

This guy has no idea what he's talking about if Google translate properly translated that page for me. There are no technical arguments and it is clearly stated on the Core roadmap for scaling why 2 MB blocks are bad right now. He talks under the assumption that Core plans on sticking with 1 MB forever and making the main chain a settlement layer for the banks. He also assumes that the fees will rise to a few hundred dollars. Both points are complete nonsense:
A) Why would banks be using Bitcoin as a settlement layer if adoption is limited? They can easily create their own.
B) Why would anyone use a system with drastically high fees when they can switch to alternatives?

The post also mentions Moore's law which is pretty much dying. Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended. If you raise blocksize to 2MB right now you are lossing a node cause I cant keep up with the amount of gigabites the block size is going to take on my hardware.

You keep propagating the myth that fees are a panacea for scalability.
A 7tps system will never be a 100tps or a 1000tps system no matter
what you do with the fee structure.

[gentlemand]

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended.

Hey, here's a crazy newsflash - not very many people use Bitcoin. If twenty million people want in it suddenly becomes a whole load less appealing as fees spiral to infinity and transactions take forever. Most first time users will not give it a second chance in that scenario.