You Mad Bro?

[adamstgBit]

please someone say somthing about full node count.

[adamstgBit]

for the record i was on the small blockers side for about 12 hours at one point.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

please someone say somthing about full node count.

It's an old meme, but it checks out.

[Blind Legs Parker]

(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter).

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total.
Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can?

[adamstgBit]

(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter).

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total.
Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can?

we could have GB blocks i can still point my cpu mining power at a pool.  and yes we want these pools to be as big as possible, no pools do not centralized bitcoin, at any point in time poeple can switch pool or create a new one, if they don't like how a pool operates.

no miner will be adversely affected by a block size increase.

your best argument would be to focus on full node count, but i'm ready for that one too.

[adamstgBit]

Hey Core!



lol good night bitcoin.

[Blind Legs Parker]

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

[Cconvert2G36]

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  

They're not having lunch, they're presenting slides:

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13911132#msg13911132

Full nodes are a right, not a rasb pi privilege.

[orpington]

"pissed off" lol!

Panties all in a bunch.

[Rescue Squad]

'All your nodes are belong to us' 

[Lauda]

Dude, this is not rocket science, if you have 10 spots and the cost is 1 to fill a spot and you have 100 people paying 1 there's still only 10 spots available, if 50 people pay 2 to get a spot still 10 spots available, if 30 pay 3, still 10 spots, it means there's always 90 people waiting, it doesn't matter how big the fee is.

Nonsense. Then you obviously have a flawed understanding of how the system works. The fee system helps determine the priority of the transaction. If you are a cheap average Joe who does not include the recommended fee then waiting is on you. Regardless of how many spots there are in the block, Lauda's transactions will always end up confirming in the first block. This is because my included fee tends to be much higher than what others include.

And if bitcoin never scales it will be always like that, because people will stop using it because the system is not reliable.
Like I said, damage is already done, block size increase should have happened months ago, people wanted to show who's in charge by pushing their way no matter the cost, it's done, they're the bosses now, good for them.

1) No damage has been done.
2) The system is working as intended.
3) The increase in capacity is coming with Segwit.
Any other nonsense that needs correcting?

please someone say somthing about full node count.

Sybil attack. 

[BeetcoinScummer]

I hate the non-vested economic majority. Fuck them dead.

[franky1]

please someone say somthing about full node count.

real and proper full nodes?

well current rules are based on 0.11.2 and anything older then that is not a full node, but a relay node. seeing as they cannot verify information they have not got the rules for as some features have changed.

so imagine it this way

core has 2499 up to date full nodes
then if we look at the other nodes that have the 0.11.2 latest rules PLUS the desire for 2mb...
2mb imps have over 1000 (classic+bu+xt)(30%+)

now.. when the core fanboys upgrade to segwit. not all of those 2500 regular updaters will stick to being full archival mode versions.. we could see as many as 500+ prefer to be the pruned no witness nodes. thus diluting down the amounts of real uptodate nodes with the latest rules that fully validate the blockchain.

basically only 2000 nodes fully validating segwit transactions/blocks

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

No. You can't blame the product (i.e. Bitcoin) because the user does not know how to use it (i.e. include proper fees). I've never had any problems with this.

Me neither. I don't understand what the issue is. Coinbase pays the fee for the user and it is very fast, bitcoin-core has a slider you can adjust that tells you the approximate wait time based upon the current setting.

I guess a lot of newbies must be using inferior services and wallets. That needs to change.

[Jet Cash]

now.. when the core fanboys upgrade to segwit. not all of those 2500 regular updaters will stick to being full archival mode versions.. we could see as many as 500+ prefer to be the pruned no witness nodes. thus diluting down the amounts of real uptodate nodes with the latest rules that fully validate the blockchain.

basically only 2000 nodes fully validating segwit transactions/blocks

Or you could see a number of users saying - hey this new faster core with pruning looks better than a 3rd party wallet. I'm going to start using it.

[RealBitcoin]

Shit i have to pay 1000 satoshi more for my transactions.

Where will i get hold of this huge amount of money? Better raise that blocksize to 1 GB fast.

[adamstgBit]

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch  

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

if poeple believe node count is dangerously low, they will sign up to a free AWS account and fire up a node.
so, node count is and always be at least as high as what poeple think is acceptable.

[adamstgBit]

Shit i have to pay 1000 satoshi more for my transactions.

Where will i get hold of this huge amount of money? Better raise that blocksize to 1 GB fast.

fees will not rise substantially, thats not the issue, the issue is the line up will grow substantially .


believing fees will rise is like saying if i only produce 1 pizza a day i can sell it for 10,000$ because 1000 poeple want 1 pizza / day

believe or not your not the only pizzeria in town.

already customers are discovering they like hamburgers as well ( ETH )

[imran$$]

yah i m  mad ! mad about doing thngs perfectly and mad about earning wht typ of mad are u ?

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I think people often see credit card as instant when it is not. Only the authorization is instant. The transaction itself doesn't happen sometimes for days.

With Bitcoin, you can look at a transaction with 0 confirmations as an auth. Once out on the system and relayed around, double spending it is very difficult if you are not a miner, so unless it is a high value - you don't really need to worry about whether it confirms within 1 or 17 hours.

It's still faster than credit card and unlike credit card, it can't be undone days later (aside from a 51% attack)