Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT

[franky1]

...
If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it?
...

ELY5:
The "obsession" is because the blocks are hitting max_block_size. Similar to obsessing with not_dying when your car' careening towards a cliff.

All devs knew, for years, that this was going to happen; because obvious to a house cat. Some devs spoke of this problem and proposed solutions. These devs were driven out of core, no longer Core_devs.

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.

also you forgot to add that the pretend increase of capacity by segwit is a bait and switch that will be filled with "confidential transactions" which re-bloat up the transactions, causing not an increase of capacity. but a decrease.

thats why we need 2mb... or even 2mb+segwit, so that everyone gets what is needed

[Cuidler]

thats why we need 2mb... or even 2mb+segwit, so that everyone gets what is needed

Better would be if all transactions had to fit in 2 MB, including any SegWit signatures. This way any further onchain scalling is much beter controlled than current SF SegWit proposal.

[chek2fire]

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.

You say that. I dont see it

[chek2fire]

thats why we need 2mb... or even 2mb+segwit, so that everyone gets what is needed

Better would be if all transactions had to fit in 2 MB, including any SegWit signatures. This way any further onchain scalling is much beter controlled than current SF SegWit proposal.

Does anyone know here how bitcoin works or all of you act like a blind zerg? SegWit solve and other problems especially for fast transmitting big block. Bitcoin as it is now can't handle even a block increase to 2mb.

[Lauda]

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.

You say that. I dont see it

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Does anyone know here how bitcoin works or all of you act like a blind zerg? SegWit solve and other problems especially for fast transmitting big block. Bitcoin as it is now can't handle even a block increase to 2mb.

Most of them apparently don't, and some are just posting because of their signatures. 2 MB blocks are susceptible to a new attack vector; Gavin's proposal (IIRC) avoids this with a workaround that limits certain types of transactions ("censorship-free" system).

[blunderer]

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.

You say that. I dont see it

Out of curiosity, how would you expect to see it? What criteria would you look for/consider valid?

Apparently.

[chek2fire]

and what criteria you use and you say that most of the community support that increase now. Bitcoin is not a democratic system we change the core after a public vote. Bitcoin system is 100% consensus in bitcoin ecosystem.
Something else i like to add is that everyone think that miner are the most powerful part in bitcoin ecosystem. Not. Miners cant pass alone a fork. They need and consensus from full nodes. Full nodes can easy block all the transactions that came from that miners. Full nodes are more powerfull in bitcoin ecosystem than miners.

[blunderer]

and what criteria you use and you say that most of the community support that increase now.

I'm going by miners (hashpower), the voting mechanism satoshi suggested and felt was sufficient.
Yourself?

Bitcoin is not a democratic system we change the core after a public vote.

Who suggested a public vote? And WTF do you mean by "Bitcoin is not a democratic system"? Avoid sloganism if you expect to be taken seriously.

Bitcoin system is 100% consensus in bitcoin ecosystem.

Nonsense.

Something else i like to add is that everyone think that miner are the most powerful part in bitcoin ecosystem. Not. Miners cant pass alone a fork. They need and consensus from full nodes. Full nodes can easy block all the transactions that came from that miners. Full nodes are more powerfull in bitcoin ecosystem than miners.

More nonsense. Miners don't need consensus from full nodes, that's pure ignorance/misinformation. There are XT nodes; Unlimited nodes; Classic nodes; I can throw up a Blunderer node. I assure you the Blunderer node is not going to be a part of your consensus, so WTF are you trying to say?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Most of the community supports raising max_block_size.

You say that. I dont see it

Out of curiosity, how would you expect to see it? What criteria would you look for/consider valid?

Apparently.

Integrity. What's it good for really?

[blunderer]

^Absolutely nothing, say it again y'all

[chek2fire]

and what criteria you use and you say that most of the community support that increase now.

I'm going by miners (hashpower), the voting mechanism satoshi suggested and felt was sufficient.
Yourself?

Bitcoin is not a democratic system we change the core after a public vote.

Who suggested a public vote? And WTF do you mean by "Bitcoin is not a democratic system"? Avoid sloganism if you expect to be taken seriously.

Bitcoin system is 100% consensus in bitcoin ecosystem.

Nonsense.

Something else i like to add is that everyone think that miner are the most powerful part in bitcoin ecosystem. Not. Miners cant pass alone a fork. They need and consensus from full nodes. Full nodes can easy block all the transactions that came from that miners. Full nodes are more powerfull in bitcoin ecosystem than miners.

More nonsense. Miners don't need consensus from full nodes, that's pure ignorance/misinformation. There are XT nodes; Unlimited nodes; Classic nodes; I can throw up a Blunderer node. I assure you the Blunderer node is not going to be a part of your consensus, so WTF are you trying to say?

but this node that you say is a small part in bitcoin ecosystem. BitcoinXt nodes have 7% now and Classic have about 1% of all the nodes. If you know anything about how bitcoin workds you cant go anywhere with that node numbers....

[blunderer]

and what criteria you use and you say that most of the community support that increase now.

I'm going by miners (hashpower), the voting mechanism satoshi suggested and felt was sufficient.
Yourself?

Bitcoin is not a democratic system we change the core after a public vote.

Who suggested a public vote? And WTF do you mean by "Bitcoin is not a democratic system"? Avoid sloganism if you expect to be taken seriously.

Bitcoin system is 100% consensus in bitcoin ecosystem.

Nonsense.

Something else i like to add is that everyone think that miner are the most powerful part in bitcoin ecosystem. Not. Miners cant pass alone a fork. They need and consensus from full nodes. Full nodes can easy block all the transactions that came from that miners. Full nodes are more powerfull in bitcoin ecosystem than miners.

More nonsense. Miners don't need consensus from full nodes, that's pure ignorance/misinformation. There are XT nodes; Unlimited nodes; Classic nodes; I can throw up a Blunderer node. I assure you the Blunderer node is not going to be a part of your consensus, so WTF are you trying to say?

but this node that you say is a small part in bitcoin ecosystem. BitcoinXt nodes have 7% now and Classic have about 1% of all the nodes. If you know anything about how bitcoin workds you cant go anywhere with that node numbers....

Classic has been released yesterday, and already has 6% (not 1%), though explain to me how this matters? Do you know how Bitcoin works?
Please understand that I can throw up as many nodes as I wish, without owning a single BTC or performing a single hash.

[chek2fire]

Yes i know. The problem is that it seems that you dont know how it works and that you blindly follow the zerg. You can read how the node system works here. Is a good start

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

[blunderer]

Yes i know. The problem is that it seems that you dont know how it works and that you blindly follow the zerg. You can read how the node system works here. Is a good start

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node

Nah, I can google myself. How 'bout YOU explain to me why non-mining node "consensus" matters
Bonus points: explain the relationship between full nodes & "economic majority."

Edit: Looooool at the ridiculous wiki "Some are incentivizing it.

Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program.

[chek2fire]

because of this

Full nodes download every block and transaction and check them against Bitcoin's core consensus rules.
If a transaction or block violates the consensus rules, then it is absolutely rejected, even if every other node on the network thinks that it is valid.

and of course this

A powerful miner is able to execute some serious attacks, but because full nodes rely on miners only for a few things, miners could not completely change or destroy Bitcoin.

[blunderer]

because of this

Full nodes download every block and transaction and check them against Bitcoin's core consensus rules.
If a transaction or block violates the consensus rules, then it is absolutely rejected, even if every other node on the network thinks that it is valid.

You're confused. The node can mark a block as "invalid" for its fork. If I throw up a bunch of Blunderer nodes, which reject every block, do you think I'll break Bitcoin? Duh!

and of course this

A powerful miner is able to execute some serious attacks, but because full nodes rely on miners only for a few things, miners could not completely change or destroy Bitcoin.

That means absolutely nothing. Structurally equivalent: Miners can do bad stuffs, but because (undefined, trust me on this), they can't.

P.S. See edit above ...oh, fuckit, i'll paste
Edit: Looooool at the ridiculous wiki "Some are incentivizing it.

Bitnodes is incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running."[2] For rules and how to join the incentives program, visit Bitnodes Incentive Program. Cheesy Cheesy

Tell me about "economic majority" again?
* The whole "full node" bit is something that's constantly glossed over, mainly because it's an embarrassing bit of nonsense & doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[chek2fire]

Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork. Unfortunately the nodes dint follow them and block this nodes as invalid. the scenario is that in the old node system the mining decrease dramatically and the remain miners take all the bitcoins.
In the other poart of the fork the miners act alone, increase their mining share but has few nodes to relay their blocks.
I cant explain more. To troll the other only for trolling is not a loyal act. You act like a small part of the zerg not even the mastermind

[blunderer]

Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork. Unfortunately the nodes dint follow them and block this nodes as invalid.

The miners run their own nodes. Overlooking, for the time being, that they could spend 1/10,000th of the money they have invested in mining  gear & throw up a sufficient number of "their" nodes a la Bitnodes stunt (for giggles, what percentage of total do you suppose that should that be?), explain how the remaining nodes matter?

the scenario is that in the old node system the mining decrease dramatically and the remain miners take all the bitcoins.

In the other poart of the fork the miners act alone, increase their mining share but has few nodes to relay their blocks.
I cant explain more. To troll the other only for trolling is not a loyal act. You act like a small part of the zerg not even the mastermind

Do explain, because what you have written thus far is nonsense.

You act like a small part of the zerg not even the mastermind

How does being that clueless and paranoid feel?

[sgbett]

in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt

still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times

some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time

Why? Segwit is what scalability is about -- optimization, making throughput more efficient so that increased capacity doesn't mean increased load on the system. Why do you have to make it so political, implying that it is a "proxy" for anything? Segwit is the best of both worlds. Buying time is the idea here....with weak blocks and IBLT down the road, block size will be less of an issue as bandwidth pressures taper off. You guys act like bitcoin has no limitations.

If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it?

We should be concerned first and foremost with retaining bitcoin's decentralized and therefore censorship-free qualities. That means that increased capacity requires optimization (like Segwit), as bandwidth is the primary pressure on node operators....not simply bloating blocks as large as adoption will allow.

There are a series of standard "anti-blocksize increase" arguments. They have all been answered.

You're currently using the 'increased pressure on nodes leads to centralisation' argument, which always invites the standard 'segwit pushes the same if not more data than blockchain' response.

Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.

You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"

[Lauda]

Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison.

You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?"

No. The current argument is Segwit vs 2 MB blocks where Segwit is far superior in any aspect (aside of the complexity). You could also argue between Core and Classic but it is obvious which the better implementation is.