2MB Pros and Cons

[desired_username]

Poll should include another option: "I want a blocksize limit increase ASAP, but not from Core".

Anyone who still respects and follows Blockstream/Core should leave the theymos owned, manipulated forums and seek unbiased information.

[1714998122]

1714998122

[1714998122]

1714998122

[1714998122]

1714998122

[Lauda]

What's worse compete with paid bitcoin shills or with paid spam transactions.

Definitely paid shills.

Decentralization at work. If you can snuff out all opposing viewpoints... you have uncontentious consensus! Next, mewn!

Wrong. The ban was suggested by a moderator that is neutral to the debate (has not voiced his opinion; few have actually) and it was ACK'd by several others. Stop this useless propaganda and ad hominem. The ban was well deserved.

Anyone who still respects and follows Blockstream/Core should leave the theymos owned, manipulated forums and seek unbiased information.

These forums are neither manipulated nor biased. Theymos does not moderate (almost never). Please stop with the pointless FUD. This is why the 'forkers' are 'very evil' and wasting everyone's time acting like this (i.e. it is time to stop).

[jbreher]

The ban was well deserved.

Will the nature of the offense be shared with the forum's user base?

[Lauda]

Will the nature of the offense be shared with the forum's user base?

It can be, I guess. It seems rather quite obvious and long overdue. However, I don't feel like we should be derailing the thread like this. OP will be back after his ban, if he chooses to come back that is.

[hv_]

Just came over that here

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986

Why is that not to stay here?

[Lauda]

Just came over that here
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986

Why is that not to stay here?

You're better of being fed information directly into your brain from Trump than reading a forum like that one. Those people there are really horrible and I don't tend to say such things without a basis. I'm talking out of experience as somebody that I know tried to clarify something on that forum. It is just a waste of time.

users & wallets that do not implement segwit and receive funds from a segwit TX will end up with unspendable funds.

Who came up with this nonsense? I've never heard of this before. Segwit is far superior than a 2 MB block size limit in all aspects aside from complexity. People are really being hyperbolic about this complexity though, mostly because their knowledge is lacking; quite unfortunate.

[hv_]

I was just wondering why this thread here is now sw else. Feels like some bad politics happened and moved things into some 'illegal' underground and failed to better discussed it on facts...

 

[franky1]

lauda still blindly wants to assume its a power grab that only one codebase should win.. leading him to want blockstream to be the supreme leader and central powerhouse.

which goes against bitcoins whole premiss..
he doesnt even realise that defending blockstream by talking about the corporate arguments of classic. is him blindly hiding the corporate arguments of blockstream.

NEITHER corporation should have control.

once he puts down his paycheck and uses his mind in the best scenario of the community he will see that all 12 implementations having 2mb PLUS segwit, together is best for everyone.

then he might stop banning people because they are not blockstream fanboys.

i really wish he would open his mind instead of his wallet when new proposals are launched. especially when its been proven he lacks real research and is just reiterating a script someone told him.

[hdbuck]

poors and cons.

[franky1]

poors and conartists.

[hv_]

Hope that very soon some real intelligent species here or there will realize that all that poor fighting leads only to lose base and only makes strong some alts... Signs for that just cannot be hidden away.

[Lauda]

I was just wondering why this thread here is now sw else. Feels like some bad politics happened and moved things into some 'illegal' underground and failed to better discussed it on facts...

OP was banned due to repeatedly breaking the rules (in addition to being in a signature campaign). He must have re-created his thread on that forum. Additionally, they apparently blame theymos for this ban. He had nothing to do with it.

Hope that very soon some real intelligent species here or there will realize that all that poor fighting leads only to lose base and only makes strong some alts... Signs for that just cannot be hidden away.

Not if one is being paid to do so. All would be fine if people agreed with Segwit now and some increase via a HF later (2017 maybe?). A 2MB block size proposal has no benefits aside from increased TPS.

[pereira4]

Its not clear to me that raising the blocksize wouldn't cause massive amounts of node centralization. If right now running a node can be a problem for a lot of people, if you make the blockchain grow at twice the speed, I think it's going to be really hard to run a node. We need data before doing this, and the research done so far points at centralization of nodes.

[hv_]

I was just wondering why this thread here is now sw else. Feels like some bad politics happened and moved things into some 'illegal' underground and failed to better discussed it on facts...

OP was banned due to repeatedly breaking the rules (in addition to being in a signature campaign). He must have re-created his thread on that forum. Additionally, they apparently blame theymos for this ban. He had nothing to do with it.

Hope that very soon some real intelligent species here or there will realize that all that poor fighting leads only to lose base and only makes strong some alts... Signs for that just cannot be hidden away.

Not if one is being paid to do so. All would be fine if people agreed with Segwit now and some increase via a HF later (2017 maybe?). A 2MB block size proposal has no benefits aside from increased TPS.

IMO all will agree to this IF

1. It is the ONLY quick straight fwd solution
2. there is enough proof due to testing incl all preripheric appl
3. nobody is left out / no ugly side affects come up with

[franky1]

Its not clear to me that raising the blocksize wouldn't cause massive amounts of node centralization. If right now running a node can be a problem for a lot of people, if you make the blockchain grow at twice the speed, I think it's going to be really hard to run a node. We need data before doing this, and the research done so far points at centralization of nodes.

bitcoin can work on a raspberry Pi.. meaning even a 2005 (11 year old) computer is atleast 2 times more powerful. and so a 5 year old computer or a 6 month old computer can handle alot more.

i do agree we need real data to back up this because all i hear currently is Laudas un-researched but scripted doomsdays. which is scaring people..

oh and by the way if laudas data on segwit is to be believed (190% capacity) and also blindly following blockstream rooadmap of making confidential payment codes by default.

then a 1mb maxblocksize+segwit+confidential payment codes = 2.85mb of real data for 3800* transaction capacity
as opposed to 2mb maxblocksize with tradition transactions =4000 capacity for 2mb real data amount

as oppose to 1mb+segwit(no confidential payment code) = 3800* tx capacity with 1.9mb real data amount

*(only if people switch to different types of private/public key signature types and do segwit transactions, expect less than 3800 due to not everyone doing segwit)

basically we should not force people to do segwit transactions to gain capacity. we need both 2mb+segwit to allow freedom of choice, zero control.

also if node distribution is the thing you care most about. also look into how many of the 6000 true nodes will blindly think pruned/no witness mode is ok.
also look into how blockstream think that the softfork is so safe people dont have to upgrade. meaning not only will it make old nodes not be full nodes because they cant verify transactions fully. but also that by not upgrading people cannot make segwit transactions so the capacity growth will not be the full 190% that lauda proclaims..

lastly. knowing that it does require people to upgrade to utilise. it is a sly way of making people upgrade. so essentially is not as risk free as you may think

[Lauda]

IMO all will agree to this IF

1. It is the ONLY quick straight fwd solution
2. there is enough proof due to testing incl all preripheric appl
3. nobody is left out / no ugly side affects come up with

As far as a 2 MB block size proposal is concerned:
1) It isn't a quick solution as HF's were never meant to be deployed as proposed recently by Gavin (grace period & consensus threshold are too low).
2) Adequate testing in some areas (maybe somebody has a source)
3) They are left out if they don't upgrade in time.

Its not clear to me that raising the blocksize wouldn't cause massive amounts of node centralization. I think it's going to be really hard to run a node. We need data before doing this, and the research done so far points at centralization of nodes.

Exactly. We need much more data in this case. A lot of people tend to say that it won't happen because storage is cheap and internet is fast already, but I tend to disagree because there aren't even that many people who run nodes these days.

[pedrog]

Its not clear to me that raising the blocksize wouldn't cause massive amounts of node centralization. If right now running a node can be a problem for a lot of people, if you make the blockchain grow at twice the speed, I think it's going to be really hard to run a node. We need data before doing this, and the research done so far points at centralization of nodes.

Just to show how silly this argument is, right now you can buy a 6 TB hard disk for 270 euros, any computer you buy comes with at least 1 TB hard disk, 10 years of 2 MB blocks are approximately 1 TB, I think, right now, at least when it comes to storage we can afford 8 MB blocks...

Imagine how cheap storage will be in 5 years, in 10 years, plus optimizations made to the protocol.

People bitching about block chain size and delaying adoption because of this is just silly.

[pawel7777]

..., but I tend to disagree because there aren't even that many people who run nodes these days.

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

People who run nodes don't get any direct incentive + most newcomers will go straight to lightweight clients or online wallets for convenience, so here's the real problem.

Just to show how silly this argument is, right now you can buy a 6 TB hard disk for 270 euros, any computer you buy comes with at least 1 TB hard disk, 10 years of 2 MB blocks are approximately 1 TB, I think, right now, at least when it comes to storage we can afford 8 MB blocks...

Imagine how cheap storage will be in 5 years, in 10 years, plus optimizations made to the protocol.

People bitching about block chain size and delaying adoption because of this is just silly.

Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.

[jbreher]

Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.

It always amuses me when the youngsters have no scope of the march of technology. From my associate Tom Coughlin:

At the Open Computer Summit Facebook’s Jason Taylor said that six years ago 1 Gbps Ethernet data center rack connections were common. Today, he said that 40 Gbps and even 100 Gbps networks are cost effective. By 2017 Facebook plans to have 100 Gbps network infrastructure in all their data centers. In addition to seeing an end to data center network speeds issues for some time to come many new innovations introduced at the Summit could change the way we store and share content.

These hyperscale datacenters are leading the charge to cheap mass bandwidth for us all.

[Lauda]

Keeping small max block size doesn't solve the decentralisation issue (decline in node count). At very best it only slows it down.

Correct. I never implied that it does solve it. However, an increased block size limit could only make it worse.

People who run nodes don't get any direct incentive + most newcomers will go straight to lightweight clients or online wallets for convenience, so here's the real problem.

Well, I don't think that the majority needs to bother with using non lightweight clients. However, they should have the option to easily use one if they wanted to.

Yes. But to be fair, the main concern in blocksize debate is network bandwidth capacity rather than just storage.

Both are a concern.