Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 09:44:52 PM |
|
that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.
here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.
if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.
XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious? that's a big if, for now. so...contention. gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB. 8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit. further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken. none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course. this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. XT has joined Classic in their goal to achieve consensus for 2MB ( https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html). Unlimited nodes will handle 2MB but there doesn't seem to be more of a chance that they will mine a 8MB block after a 2MB HF than tomorrow or yesterday. So if the argument against a HF is that it would be a contentious HF, then where is the contention if Core decides to join the party?
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 09:47:07 PM |
|
... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 09:50:04 PM |
|
... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees. I've gotten txs stuck when other people send to me. And they're nerds. Which means a) if they can't get it right, a lot of others will fail b) you can't instruct them on something they think they know how to do.
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 09:51:52 PM |
|
that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.
here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.
if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.
XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious? that's a big if, for now. so...contention. gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB. 8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit. further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken. none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course. this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. XT has joined Classic in their goal to achieve consensus for 2MB ( https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html). Unlimited nodes will handle 2MB but there doesn't seem to be more of a chance that they will mine a 8MB block after a 2MB HF than tomorrow or yesterday. So if the argument against a HF is that it would be a contentious HF, then where is the contention if Core decides to join the party? ah okay. so it's simply 1MB vs. 2MB. if Core joins the party, and everyone agrees to wait for miner consensus before forking, it wouldn't be contentious. that's fine with me. but why should Core do that? just to make the "must-fork-now" camp happy? the basis for the disagreement is technical.
|
|
|
|
blunderer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 09:54:03 PM |
|
... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees. As I understand it, some still cling to the "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" pipe dream. At 3tps, Bitcoin could be "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System For An Average Shopping Mall."
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 09:55:47 PM |
|
... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees. I've gotten txs stuck when other people send to me. And they're nerds. Which means a) if they can't get it right, a lot of others will fail b) you can't instruct them on something they think they know how to do. well that's anecdotal and dependent on how you define nerds. not very reliable anyway, what happened? nothing. an unconfirmed transaction with insufficient fees went unconfirmed. and no one lost anything (unless you accept zero confirmations as a valid payment, which no one should be doing) perhaps a solution is to integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client.
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:00:59 PM |
|
... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees. As I understand it, some still cling to the "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" pipe dream. At 3tps, Bitcoin could be "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System For An Average Shopping Mall." why? seems kinda arbitrary. is that compared to centralized systems like Visa? they don't offer the same security that bitcoin does. centralization failure, reversible payments. anyway, Core's plan increases capacity via segwit, and intends to increase the block size limit for more capacity once the technical problems re bandwidth are addressed. they've proposed how to address those too. the kids may be screaming in the back seat, but we just aren't there yet.
|
|
|
|
franky1
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4326
Merit: 4644
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:11:24 PM |
|
ah okay. so it's simply 1MB vs. 2MB. if Core joins the party, and everyone agrees to wait for miner consensus before forking, it wouldn't be contentious. that's fine with me.
but why should Core do that? just to make the "must-fork-now" camp happy? the basis for the disagreement is technical.
its called a buffer.. by having the setting.. but miners never making a block over 1mb for multiple reasons causes no harm but by not having the setting, should miners reach a majority and then after reaching the majority, decide to start making blocks more then 1mb. there would be problems.. EG when everyone had a 1mb limit there were no issues when miners were only making 0.25btc in 2009-2011.. never a problem when miners were making blocks only 0.5mb upto 2013.. but imagine if core only had the limit was only 0.1mb. and every couple years this debate had to be had where core refused to increase the buffer to cope with natural growth until a year of arguments were made. remember miners are not going to start pumping out 1.999mb blocks instantly. they would dip their toe in the water with 1.005mb and slowly grow after time. so its not a nuclear button to increase the capacity buffer limit. no where in the code does it force miners to make blocks at 1.999mb nor more than 0.999mb.. its upto the miners how much they will grow and how fast. and its logical that they are not going to strain themselves 2fold straight away. it would be slow and steady. core also want to be anal by making a proposal for 1.5mb which is just a anal gesture of poking the bear for a year before another year long debate goes on to get them to try upping the buffer.. its far easier to have 2mb and let miners manage the slow growth, rather than letting core dominate the network with their limitations.
|
I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER. Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:20:48 PM |
|
ah okay. so it's simply 1MB vs. 2MB. if Core joins the party, and everyone agrees to wait for miner consensus before forking, it wouldn't be contentious. that's fine with me.
but why should Core do that? just to make the "must-fork-now" camp happy? the basis for the disagreement is technical.
its called a buffer.. by having the setting.. but miners never making a block over 1mb for multiple reasons causes no harm that puts trust in miners not to prematurely fork before the rest of the network has updated. if you're so sure they won't do that, why don't we just enforce it with code? same outcome without putting trust into miners not to break the network.
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:24:34 PM |
|
that fork was an emergency update, where there was no controversy over the implementation.
here, we have multiple competing development teams that disagree (including actively lobbying miners against one another), and the stated threat of moving forward with or without miner (and surely node) consensus. that can easily mean chain forking into multiple ledgers ...forever.
if the network can't reach consensus on the rules to enforce, the only means to establish a single (trustless, decentralized) ledger are broken. that will erode a lot of trust in bitcoin, possibly beyond repair.
XT, Classic and Unlimited are compatible with 2MB. If Core goes 2MB how is it contentious? that's a big if, for now. so...contention. gavin withdrew the BIP101 pull request from the Core BIPs on github, but isn't XT still implementing BIP101, which is 8MB block size limit to start? that means miners can produce blocks as large as 8MB. 8MB blocks are not compatible with Classic's 2MB block size limit. further, since Unlimited has no hard-coded block-size limit, it views all blocks as valid (whether max 1MB, 2MB or 8MB). that means that it accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. but Classic and Core won't accept blocks above 2MB, meaning if any such blocks exist, compatibility with both XT and Unlimited is broken. none of these are compatible with a 1MB limit, of course. this represents a possibility for at least three separate forks. A 1MB fork, which rejects Classic and XT blocks above 1MB. A 2MB fork, which rejects XT blocks above 2MB. And an 8MB fork, which accepts Core, Classic and XT blocks. XT has joined Classic in their goal to achieve consensus for 2MB ( https://bitcoinxt.software/patches.html). Unlimited nodes will handle 2MB but there doesn't seem to be more of a chance that they will mine a 8MB block after a 2MB HF than tomorrow or yesterday. So if the argument against a HF is that it would be a contentious HF, then where is the contention if Core decides to join the party? ah okay. so it's simply 1MB vs. 2MB. if Core joins the party, and everyone agrees to wait for miner consensus before forking, it wouldn't be contentious. that's fine with me. but why should Core do that? just to make the "must-fork-now" camp happy? the basis for the disagreement is technical. Sure, but as you see, their communication method is FUD and lies. That bothers me. Beyond that: all the reasons proponents of XT and Classic raise. ... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees. I've gotten txs stuck when other people send to me. And they're nerds. Which means a) if they can't get it right, a lot of others will fail b) you can't instruct them on something they think they know how to do. well that's anecdotal and dependent on how you define nerds. not very reliable anyway, what happened? nothing. an unconfirmed transaction with insufficient fees went unconfirmed. and no one lost anything (unless you accept zero confirmations as a valid payment, which no one should be doing) perhaps a solution is to integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client. Seems to meet the same stringent terms you allow yourself. But yes, it's anecdotal evidence. One got stuck for four days before the network unclogged and I received it. An integrated fee calculator is something you integrate before the network clogs up. As are alternate solutions to the block size problem. Or you simply bump up the block size limit.
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:30:38 PM |
|
Sure, but as you see, their communication method is FUD and lies. That bothers me.
Beyond that: all the reasons proponents of XT and Classic raise. FUD and lies? i disagree, but opinions are like assholes. we all got em. XT and Classic proponents have raised some points, and Core and much of the community vehemently disagrees. = contention. well that's anecdotal and dependent on how you define nerds. not very reliable
anyway, what happened? nothing. an unconfirmed transaction with insufficient fees went unconfirmed. and no one lost anything (unless you accept zero confirmations as a valid payment, which no one should be doing)
perhaps a solution is to integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client.
Seems to meet the same stringent terms you allow yourself. But yes, it's anecdotal evidence. One got stuck for four days before the network unclogged and I received it. An integrated fee calculator is something you integrate before the network clogs up. As are alternate solutions to the block size problem. Or you simply bump up the block size limit. the difference is you are arguing to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for why. i was merely quipping that i haven't seen evidence that this supposedly urgent problem is urgent, nor a problem. blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. so it seems to me that we could integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client before the network actually clogs up (if it is going to).
|
|
|
|
blunderer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:31:28 PM |
|
... any evidence for this "sky is falling" attitude? any evidence of huge fees? what is "huge?" i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees.
bitcoin has "restricted blocksizes" yet, it is "very popular and people [are] eager to use this coin."
Whelp, this is about as popular as Bitcoin gets, because the network can't handle any more volume. Enjoy ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) hehe well, seems to be chugging along just fine to me. i dunno who's getting their transactions constantly stuck but i've always been able to get my transaction in the next block for minimal fees. As I understand it, some still cling to the "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" pipe dream. At 3tps, Bitcoin could be "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System For An Average Shopping Mall." why? seems kinda arbitrary. is that compared to centralized systems like Visa? they don't offer the same security that bitcoin does. centralization failure, reversible payments. What's arbitrary? The fact that Bitcoin, in its present state, could be overloaded by a single suburban shopping mall? Not sure I understand. Far as reversed payments, that's the reason people *use* Visa: so that they *could* charge back if shit goes south. Chargeback is not something intrinsic to fiat money -- Visa could make transactions as irreversible as Bitcoin, but it doesn't, because smart ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) anyway, Core's plan increases capacity via segwit, and intends to increase the block size limit for more capacity once the technical problems re bandwidth are addressed. they've proposed how to address those too.
So, after stalling and pretending the problem didn't exist for a year, segwit is suddenly gonna be ready to solve it? Would that be In Two Weeks TM? the kids may be screaming in the back seat, but we just aren't there yet.
Kids no longer in the back seat. Got sick of the bullshit & bailed. Riding with Visa nao.
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:42:11 PM |
|
What's arbitrary? The fact that Bitcoin, in its present state, could be overloaded by a single suburban shopping mall? Not sure I understand. Far as reversed payments, that's the reason people *use* Visa: so that they *could* charge back if shit goes south. Chargeback is not something intrinsic to fiat money -- Visa could make transactions as irreversible as Bitcoin, but it doesn't, because smart ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) the comparison between bitcoin and a shopping mall is arbitrary. bitcoin is not just a payment channel. it was intended to cut out third party trust (e.g. Visa), and it does that by being a clunky, redundant dinosaur. it's not pretty but it's how decentralization works. not really comparable to centralized systems. since Visa is the central agent that enforces its rules, users could never trust Visa to keep transactions irreversible; nothing enforces that. and they are still a central point of failure. anyway, Core's plan increases capacity via segwit, and intends to increase the block size limit for more capacity once the technical problems re bandwidth are addressed. they've proposed how to address those too.
So, after stalling and pretending the problem didn't exist for a year, segwit is suddenly gonna be ready to solve it? Would that be In Two Weeks TM? what do you mean? this debate has been going on nearly all the way back to bitcoin's inception. Core didn't believe a hard fork increase was necessary back then, or now. that's not an illegitimate position just because some people disagree. the kids may be screaming in the back seat, but we just aren't there yet.
Kids no longer in the back seat. Got sick of the bullshit & bailed. Riding with Visa nao. Visa's great. credit cards are fucking fantastic. i get fat cash back on all my purchases. i say, let's keep using Visa cuz it's fucking great. and let's keep bitcoin from turning into a centralized system like Visa, because that defeats the purpose.
|
|
|
|
blunderer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:54:06 PM Last edit: February 19, 2016, 11:07:45 PM by blunderer |
|
What's arbitrary? The fact that Bitcoin, in its present state, could be overloaded by a single suburban shopping mall? Not sure I understand. Far as reversed payments, that's the reason people *use* Visa: so that they *could* charge back if shit goes south. Chargeback is not something intrinsic to fiat money -- Visa could make transactions as irreversible as Bitcoin, but it doesn't, because smart ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) the comparison between bitcoin and a shopping mall is arbitrary. bitcoin is not just a payment channel. it was intended to cut out third party trust (e.g. Visa), < snip > So tell me, Bitcoin: The Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was designed to "cut out third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" out of WHAT? Clearly not shopping, because a single suburban shopping mall would overload the network, so it's not suitable for shopping. At least, according to you. since Visa is the central agent that enforces its rules, users could never trust Visa to keep transactions irreversible; nothing enforces that. and they are still a central point of failure.
Let me see now... Visa LENDS ME THE MONEY, FOR FREE, to buy shit with, and I can't trust it? Why, exactly, do I need to trust it, considering I'm playing with its money? Explain this shit. Edit: ... Visa's great. credit cards are fucking fantastic. i get fat cash back on all my purchases. i say, let's keep using Visa cuz it's fucking great. and let's keep bitcoin from turning into a centralized system like Visa, because that defeats the purpose.
Centralized? How des letting Bitcoin grow turn into centralization?
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 10:55:14 PM |
|
Sure, but as you see, their communication method is FUD and lies. That bothers me.
Beyond that: all the reasons proponents of XT and Classic raise. FUD and lies? i disagree, but opinions are like assholes. we all got em. XT and Classic proponents have raised some points, and Core and much of the community vehemently disagrees. = contention. If your argument for not buying the stove is that it will burn the house down and that is proven wrong, and you reply with "well I will torch the place if you install the blimmin thing so I'm right anyway", then that's a problem in my mind. That is the argument they've been running with when talking to miners lately and that's what made them sign that blimmin document. Could you please explain to me why their HF in 2017 will be so much more safe than the one the community has been begging for for a year now? Will segwit even be activated if Antpool throws a hissy fit and refuses to run core? Right now core devs are the root of the contention. Will they be able to wish contention away when they need a HF or will that as well turn out to not be a problem? well that's anecdotal and dependent on how you define nerds. not very reliable
anyway, what happened? nothing. an unconfirmed transaction with insufficient fees went unconfirmed. and no one lost anything (unless you accept zero confirmations as a valid payment, which no one should be doing)
perhaps a solution is to integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client.
Seems to meet the same stringent terms you allow yourself. But yes, it's anecdotal evidence. One got stuck for four days before the network unclogged and I received it. An integrated fee calculator is something you integrate before the network clogs up. As are alternate solutions to the block size problem. Or you simply bump up the block size limit. the difference is you are arguing to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for why. i was merely quipping that i haven't seen evidence that this supposedly urgent problem is urgent, nor a problem. blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. so it seems to me that we could integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client before the network actually clogs up (if it is going to). And my position is that you're the one saying it's ok that Bitcoin is hitting the wall. So I say the burden of proof lies on you. No, not really. You quipped, and I quipped back , but somehow you think your quip was more legitimate than my quip so my inner nerd blew a fuse. It doesn't matter anyhew. The world doesn't give a flying fudge about what I say so I'll say it just to keep from going crazy.
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 11:43:18 PM |
|
If I may interject, I always enjoy your quips, Fatty. ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
|
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.
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 11:47:55 PM |
|
What's arbitrary? The fact that Bitcoin, in its present state, could be overloaded by a single suburban shopping mall? Not sure I understand. Far as reversed payments, that's the reason people *use* Visa: so that they *could* charge back if shit goes south. Chargeback is not something intrinsic to fiat money -- Visa could make transactions as irreversible as Bitcoin, but it doesn't, because smart ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) the comparison between bitcoin and a shopping mall is arbitrary. bitcoin is not just a payment channel. it was intended to cut out third party trust (e.g. Visa), < snip > So tell me, Bitcoin: The Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was designed to "cut out third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" out of WHAT? Clearly not shopping, because a single suburban shopping mall would overload the network, so it's not suitable for shopping. At least, according to you. it was designed to "cut out third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" from transactions between two parties. satoshi put it this way: "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending." since Visa is the central agent that enforces its rules, users could never trust Visa to keep transactions irreversible; nothing enforces that. and they are still a central point of failure.
Let me see now... Visa LENDS ME THE MONEY, FOR FREE, to buy shit with, and I can't trust it? Why, exactly, do I need to trust it, considering I'm playing with its money? Explain this shit. Visa doesn't lend you the money; a bank does. you need to trust it (or the lending bank) because they can reverse any payment that is made to you. this is problematic for anyone that accepts payment for goods/services only to have that payment reversed. Edit: ... Visa's great. credit cards are fucking fantastic. i get fat cash back on all my purchases. i say, let's keep using Visa cuz it's fucking great. and let's keep bitcoin from turning into a centralized system like Visa, because that defeats the purpose.
Centralized? How des letting Bitcoin grow turn into centralization? if "letting bitcoin grow" =/= sacrificing decentralization, i'm with ya. but there have been compelling arguments made that increasing block size with the current infrastructure will sacrifice decentralization.
|
|
|
|
figmentofmyass
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1652
Merit: 1483
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 19, 2016, 11:57:11 PM |
|
If your argument for not buying the stove is that it will burn the house down and that is proven wrong, and you reply with "well I will torch the place if you install the blimmin thing so I'm right anyway", then that's a problem in my mind. That is the argument they've been running with when talking to miners lately and that's what made them sign that blimmin document. literally...... that's just, like, your opinion, man. i don't think Core has said anything of the sort. maybe you can point to some such arguments from Core devs. Could you please explain to me why their HF in 2017 will be so much more safe than the one the community has been begging for for a year now? because weak blocks/IBLT's are estimated by Core to reduce bandwidth needs for nodes by 90%. that is 90% of the whole damn problem that we're talking about = safer to raise the limit. i don't see any evidence that anything but a small minority is making noise about this. Will segwit even be activated if Antpool throws a hissy fit and refuses to run core? Right now core devs are the root of the contention. Will they be able to wish contention away when they need a HF or will that as well turn out to not be a problem? you could say Classic devs are at the root of the contention. it just means disagreement. the easy answer is that no consensus on change = no change. that's how the protocol works. the difference is you are arguing to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for why. i was merely quipping that i haven't seen evidence that this supposedly urgent problem is urgent, nor a problem.
blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. so it seems to me that we could integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client before the network actually clogs up (if it is going to).
And my position is that you're the one saying it's ok that Bitcoin is hitting the wall. So I say the burden of proof lies on you. why? blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. your opinion that "bitcoin is hitting the wall" isn't really founded in fact. the burden lies on you to explain how that is so. No, not really. You quipped, and I quipped back , but somehow you think your quip was more legitimate than my quip so my inner nerd blew a fuse. nah, not more legitimate just saying that the burden of proof for why we need to make a change, falls on the person claiming we need to make that change. It doesn't matter anyhew. The world doesn't give a flying fudge about what I say so I'll say it just to keep from going crazy.
yeah i dont think anyone gives a shit about what we say here. but here we are ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
|
|
|
blunderer
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 12:09:06 AM |
|
What's arbitrary? The fact that Bitcoin, in its present state, could be overloaded by a single suburban shopping mall? Not sure I understand. Far as reversed payments, that's the reason people *use* Visa: so that they *could* charge back if shit goes south. Chargeback is not something intrinsic to fiat money -- Visa could make transactions as irreversible as Bitcoin, but it doesn't, because smart ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) the comparison between bitcoin and a shopping mall is arbitrary. bitcoin is not just a payment channel. it was intended to cut out third party trust (e.g. Visa), < snip > So tell me, Bitcoin: The Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was designed to "cut out third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" out of WHAT? Clearly not shopping, because a single suburban shopping mall would overload the network, so it's not suitable for shopping. At least, according to you. it was designed to "cut out third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" from transactions between two parties. satoshi put it this way: "the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending." Let me simplify this for you: "Transactions between two parties" in which a "third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" may be involved, are CALLED "SHOPPING" by normal people. Possibly "paying Bills," if you're dead broke. What else do you do with Visa? A suburban shopping mall's worth of transactions is enough to overwhelm the Bitcoin network in its current state, so 3 "transactions between two parties" per second is clearly not enough. What is it that you object to? since Visa is the central agent that enforces its rules, users could never trust Visa to keep transactions irreversible; nothing enforces that. and they are still a central point of failure.
Let me see now... Visa LENDS ME THE MONEY, FOR FREE, to buy shit with, and I can't trust it? Why, exactly, do I need to trust it, considering I'm playing with its money? Explain this shit. Visa doesn't lend you the money; a bank does. you need to trust it (or the lending bank) because they can reverse any payment that is made to you. this is problematic for anyone that accepts payment for goods/services only to have that payment reversed. Visa DOES lend me the money, regardless of where the money comes from. If Visa chooses to reverse the payment I've made when I filled my tank & paid with Visa, explain to me what happens? Has Visa ever reversed the payment you've made with (your own, not carded) Visa? How did that go? Edit: ... Visa's great. credit cards are fucking fantastic. i get fat cash back on all my purchases. i say, let's keep using Visa cuz it's fucking great. and let's keep bitcoin from turning into a centralized system like Visa, because that defeats the purpose.
Centralized? How des letting Bitcoin grow turn into centralization? if "letting bitcoin grow" =/= sacrificing decentralization, i'm with ya. but there have been compelling arguments made that increasing block size with the current infrastructure will sacrifice decentralization. If by "compelling arguments" you mean inane drivel & blatant lies, I'm with ya too.
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1013
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
February 20, 2016, 12:19:25 AM |
|
If your argument for not buying the stove is that it will burn the house down and that is proven wrong, and you reply with "well I will torch the place if you install the blimmin thing so I'm right anyway", then that's a problem in my mind. That is the argument they've been running with when talking to miners lately and that's what made them sign that blimmin document. literally...... that's just, like, your opinion, man. i don't think Core has said anything of the sort. maybe you can point to some such arguments from Core devs. Could you please explain to me why their HF in 2017 will be so much more safe than the one the community has been begging for for a year now? because weak blocks/IBLT's are estimated by Core to reduce bandwidth needs for nodes by 90%. that is 90% of the whole damn problem that we're talking about = safer to raise the limit. i don't see any evidence that anything but a small minority is making noise about this. Will segwit even be activated if Antpool throws a hissy fit and refuses to run core? Right now core devs are the root of the contention. Will they be able to wish contention away when they need a HF or will that as well turn out to not be a problem? you could say Classic devs are at the root of the contention. it just means disagreement. the easy answer is that no consensus on change = no change. that's how the protocol works. the difference is you are arguing to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for why. i was merely quipping that i haven't seen evidence that this supposedly urgent problem is urgent, nor a problem.
blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. so it seems to me that we could integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client before the network actually clogs up (if it is going to).
And my position is that you're the one saying it's ok that Bitcoin is hitting the wall. So I say the burden of proof lies on you. why? blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. your opinion that "bitcoin is hitting the wall" isn't really founded in fact. the burden lies on you to explain how that is so. No, not really. You quipped, and I quipped back , but somehow you think your quip was more legitimate than my quip so my inner nerd blew a fuse. nah, not more legitimate just saying that the burden of proof for why we need to make a change, falls on the person claiming we need to make that change. It doesn't matter anyhew. The world doesn't give a flying fudge about what I say so I'll say it just to keep from going crazy.
yeah i dont think anyone gives a shit about what we say here. but here we are ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) I'll tell you a little secret: Blocks will never be full on average. Even if we cap it to 100KB. If you think that means we don't have a problem then there's not much more to say.
|
"I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse." - Robert Metcalfe, 1995
|
|
|
|