Why Blockstream is against "contentious" hard forks - Control

[MeteoImpact]

average = 563.. not 250.. the 250 is the MINIMUM not the average(median)

It really is impressive how much time you've spent spitting out numbers and crying foul about block sizes without spending 30 seconds looking up, "median", in a dictionary. Despite how often you like to bring up Lauda not understanding C++ or Java or whatever, you don't even bother making the effort to understand the basic terms you're trying to argue about--and it's not as if this is some isolated incident. Yes, the average transaction size is greater than 250 bytes. No one ever said otherwise. It doesn't matter what accusations you levy or what numbers you cook up if it's all based on basic misunderstandings.

Sorry for this rather off-topic post... My fault for not having franky on ignore, I guess.

[chek2fire]

^^ said by someone paid by blockstream ^^
 

The blockstream rhetoric is painfully transparent to anyone paying attention.

How easy it is to cry "but we shouldn't change anything without consensus" while
at the same time being the very impediment to that consensus.

The community has thus far been complacent enough to
accept by default the leadership of core, but in the face of continued
stagnation, one has to wonder: "but for how much longer?"

the most Bitcoin developer and the lead developer are not payed by blockstream but bitcoin is controlled by blockstream.. heh??? lol
How old are you?

[JeromeL]

so blockstream paid coders are now backing out of CT
well we already seen the hardfork was proposed for 2017.. which you and luke JR are now pretending was also not part of the roadmap.

i wonder what else is going to be backed out of and pretend it was never a part of the roadmap.

Can you link to the Bitcoin Core roadmap that included CT please ? The only roadmap I am aware of is the one linked below and doesn't mention Confidential Transactions (CT).

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

If you aren't able to provide a previous Bitcoin Core roadmap that included CT, then you should apologize to the forum participants for wasting their time and specifically to gmax for posting deceitful information.

In general, I think the moderation policy is much too lose on this forum, especially when I see energumens like you wasting everybodies time, adding negative value to the forum and generally diminishing the posting quality. Unsheathe the perma bans.

[Lauda]

It really is impressive how much time you've spent spitting out numbers and crying foul about block sizes without spending 30 seconds looking up, "median", in a dictionary.

Correct. While I might have wrongly used 'average' instead of median somewhere (I don't recall all of the times that I've written about this), Maxwell never did. Franky does not know the definition of median TX size which does not surprise me at all.

Can you link to the Bitcoin Core roadmap that included CT please ? The only roadmap I am aware of is the one linked below and doesn't mention Confidential Transactions (CT).

It was never part of the Bitcoin Core roadmap. There is (I think) only one roadmap for 2016 and it was not changed at all. The original estimates and content are still part of it. He has either gone made or thinks Core == Blockstream (which would also be wrong since he does not know the 'roadmap' of this private company).

If you aren't able to provide a previous Bitcoin Core roadmap that included CT, then you should apologize to the forum participants for wasting their time and specifically to gmax for posting deceitful information.

He can't. He will do one of the following:
1) Request math (not relevant) while he provides false calculations.
2) Lauda doesn't know C++.
3) Maxwell is a liar.
4) You are all Blockstream shills.
5) Other irrelevant nonsense.

In general, I think the moderation policy is much too lose on this forum, especially when I see energumens like you wasting everybodies time, adding negative value to the forum and generally diminishing the posting quality. Unsheathe the perma bans.

I could not agree more.

[franky1]

average = 563.. not 250.. the 250 is the MINIMUM not the average(median)

It really is impressive how much time you've spent spitting out numbers and crying foul about block sizes without spending 30 seconds looking up, "median", in a dictionary. Despite how often you like to bring up Lauda not understanding C++ or Java or whatever, you don't even bother making the effort to understand the basic terms you're trying to argue about--and it's not as if this is some isolated incident. Yes, the average transaction size is greater than 250 bytes. No one ever said otherwise. It doesn't matter what accusations you levy or what numbers you cook up if it's all based on basic misunderstandings.

Sorry for this rather off-topic post... My fault for not having franky on ignore, I guess.

lauda thinks MEDIAN means minimum.. wrong
he has said on many posts.. and also gmaxwell too, has stated the median transaction size is under 250bytes..

median does not mean minimum..

Correct. While I might have wrongly used 'average' instead of median somewhere (I don't recall all of the times that I've written about this), Maxwell never did.

but gmaxwel has

median transaction size of 226byte??
i think u meant minimum not median

That is the median size.

again the 226byte is MINIMUM.. not median, not average.. the median is about 500.. the average is similar
median means middle number. and is usually close to an average, well atleast in the same ball park.. its definetly not the minimum or the maximum.. but the amount between the two..

[btcusury]

Yep, and thanks to the level of FUD that has been employed by blockstream now every idiot on r/bitcoin thinks hard forks are somehow "dangerous" and "contentious", despite having no real understanding of the subject.

What a laughable state of affairs.

We have a bunch of greedy idiots who just want to maintain their control over the bitcoin protocol at all costs, who have now taken over bitcoin development.

Core has employed massive amounts of FUD, disinformation campaigns, smear campaigns, paid hundreds of thousands to DDoS nodes of competing implementations, censored all the main communication hubs and filled them with their trolls... and the list goes on.

You'd really have to be an idiot not to see what's happening here.

It's incredible how skewed your perspective is. You got it all reversed. The maxblocksize hardforking efforts originate from a deliberate covert campaign of creating disinformation that people like you spread as misinformation. You are helping the real "bad guys" while fully believing the lies they have sold you... If you're not an idiot you will do far more research and come back with a much broader perspective.

[rizzlarolla]

Another thread by the big block Gavinista fan club...
ya.ya.yo!

Straight from the closed minded #REKT thread  of funny spelling and composition competitions.

Its still a problem and just getting worse.

But only just becoming noticeable to the punters.

Concerns about hardforks and removal of blocksize limits stem back many years

Yeah, Core and #REKT fans always go off on this tangent. 1mb or infinity. 1.25mb will destroy bitcoin?

Every one that not understand this is simple not understand how bitcoin works. This is a fact. Everything else is a childish playground for morons...

Completely not a fact that the block size can not be raised. Should Intergalactic Conciliator's be calling people morons?

The community has thus far been complacent enough to
accept by default the leadership of core, but in the face of continued
stagnation, one has to wonder: "but for how much longer?"

Just for a bit longer. Core will have had their chance, and will be the next hearn.
A rapid hardfork to increase block size will likely come when the segwit reality becomes clearer, and when blocks really are at capacity and beyond.

so no actual numbers then?

Just waffle these days.

The irony here is that a increase of the block size limit is no solution at all.

It is a solution to processing more transactions.

lol How old are you?

Old enough not to think i'm a Intergalactic Conciliator, represented by action men avitar.

lauda thinks MEDIAN means minimum.. wrong

We all f*** up sometime. I got the math point you were making.

It's incredible how skewed your perspective is

Shitty OP. All outdated links. I was gonna let this thread pass by like that other, now very popular sig thread "My life has all been a lie" cos the twat thought he had 1000 satoshi, not 10 he really had or something like that..

[gmaxwell]

Correct. While I might have wrongly used 'average' instead of median somewhere (I don't recall all of the times that I've written about this), Maxwell never did.

but gmaxwel has

median transaction size of 226byte??
i think u meant minimum not median

That is the median size.

again the 226byte is MINIMUM.. not median, not average.. the median is about 500.. the average is similar
median means middle number. and is usually close to an average, well atleast in the same ball park.. its definetly not the minimum or the maximum.. but the amount between the two..

No. 226 is actually the _median_ transaction size.


In [46]: pp = AuthServiceProxy("http://bitcoinrpc:password@127.0.0.1:8332")                                   
In [47]: txa=[pp.getrawtransaction(x,1) for x in pp.getblock(pp.getblockhash(415093),True)['tx'][1:]]
In [48]: sum([x['size'] for x in txa])
Out[48]: 999724
In [49]: numpy.median([x['size'] for x in txa])
Out[49]: 226.0


Same story for pretty much every block.

(Minimum is 189 in that block FWIW).

Franky1, in this case you were just confused-- but you've got a number of other claims like saying CT is part of core's published roadmap, that are outright lies. I think you need to stop wasting everyone's time.

[Syke]

"median" is not a very interesting number when considering blocksize. "mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.

[rizzlarolla]

Correct. While I might have wrongly used 'average' instead of median somewhere (I don't recall all of the times that I've written about this), Maxwell never did.

but gmaxwel has

median transaction size of 226byte??
i think u meant minimum not median

That is the median size.

again the 226byte is MINIMUM.. not median, not average.. the median is about 500.. the average is similar
median means middle number. and is usually close to an average, well atleast in the same ball park.. its definetly not the minimum or the maximum.. but the amount between the two..

No. 226 is actually the _median_ transaction size.


In [46]: pp = AuthServiceProxy("http://bitcoinrpc:password@127.0.0.1:8332")                                    
In [47]: txa=[pp.getrawtransaction(x,1) for x in pp.getblock(pp.getblockhash(415093),True)['tx'][1:]]
In [48]: sum([x['size'] for x in txa])
Out[48]: 999724
In [49]: numpy.median([x['size'] for x in txa])
Out[49]: 226.0


Same story for pretty much every block.

(Minimum is 189 in that block FWIW).

Franky1, in this case you were just confused-- but you've got a number of other claims like saying CT is part of core's published roadmap, that are outright lies. I think you need to stop wasting everyone's time.

226 is the median transaction size.

I'm not surprised the confusion here.
There are no big outright lies here, just confusion (of official and officially implied?)
Franky is not wasting my time.
If clear answers as above were more commonplace...

I don't see blocks with 4000+ transactions as the median 226 would imply.
Is the mean transaction size very similar to the median do you know?

segwit will have little to no effect on Block space for some fairly considerable time after any soft fork, and that soft fork will likely take some fairly considerable time from now. Segwit release/adoption/bugs are all of an unpredictable nature.

Are we all supposed to wait as long as segwit takes to make a difference. (which will be ages or never)
Is bitcoin adoption on hold from now till then?
Or is this your idea of a fee market?

segwit maybe for the future, when it is needed, (or not) and properly tested.
segwit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by core. Obviously.

[Lauda]

"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.

Nobody said that it wasn't.

Are we all supposed to wait as long as segwit takes to make a difference. (which will be ages or never)

Hyperbolic nonsense, nothing surprising there. If you want additional capacity, you will try to use Segwit as soon as possible, otherwise you are indirectly stating that you don't need/want it. It is as simple as that. The calculations have been done and we can expect a realistic ~180% capacity after some time (certainly not "ages or never").

segwit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by core.

2 MB block size limit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by Hearnia & co.

[rizzlarolla]

"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.

Nobody said that it wasn't.

Are we all supposed to wait as long as segwit takes to make a difference. (which will be ages or never)

Hyperbolic nonsense, nothing surprising there. If you want additional capacity, you will try to use Segwit as soon as possible, otherwise you are indirectly stating that you don't need/want it. It is as simple as that. The calculations have been done and we can expect a realistic ~180% capacity after some time (certainly not "ages or never").

segwit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by core.

2 MB block size limit is not needed today. It has just been sold that way by Hearnia & co.

"Hyperbolic nonsense", yeah maybe, we all got an opinion. Some more credible than others.
(ftr not a dig at Lauda)
A realistic 180% "after some time"? if every transaction, paying less fees to miners, was segwit?
(Miners do more work for less fees. full nodes need more bandwidth than 1.8mb, think that is part of what Franky is saying?)

I am saying I don't want segwit. At least not yet, untill it can be more tested and proven.
Correct, 2 mb is not actually needed today. 1.25 would suffice.

(oh, just noticed the "hernia & co" comment. If we don't say the same thing as "staff" we are abused? shocking and ridiculous considering no thread here, discussion, goes without Laudas staff  "opinion")

[franky1]

"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.

Nobody said that it wasn't.

translation
"Q:guys how do we hide the fact that transaction sizes will bloat when people do calculations of the potential blocksize vs potential transactions per block after all the proposed features are included..?
"A:dont talk about averages, dont use 'mean', we can manipulate numbskull opinion by talking as if we are suggesting average but actually quote a median number.
"Q:how does that work
"A: well if we had 0,1,2,226,227,228,229 the median is 226.. if we have 0,0,0,226,5000,10000,500000 the median is still 226... if we have 0,226,1023435453 the median is still 226
"Q:so why should we pick 226 as a special number..
"A:because that is a safe minimum transaction size, its not the absolute minimum, but its a safe minimum people expect to see.. and if we try to talk about this minimum in a way that makes people presume 226 is expected atleast 50% of the time. or the majority of the time.. we dont have to explain real data because then it is revealed that us blockstreamers are actually the "bigblockers".. where we offer less transactions per megabyte then the simple blocksize increase alone
Q:so 226 is useless as a relevant number for people who actually want to do multisig, or LN lockins/settlements or numerous other things like paying more then a couple people..
A:yea 226 has nothing to do with what a person should expect on average.. its just a arbitrary number to shift the debate away from real maths of real data and peoples real expectations of reality.. but dont tell anyone.. lets keep misleading people and then insulting those that do show real averages to make them sound like they are wrong and we are right"

[rizzlarolla]

"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.

Nobody said that it wasn't.

translation
"Q:guys how do we hide the fact that transaction sizes will bloat when people do calculations of the average blocksize vs average transactions per block after all the proposed features are included..?
"A:dont talk about averages, dont use 'mean', we can manipulate numbskull opinion by talking as if we are suggesting average but actually quote a median number.
"Q:how does that work
"A: well if we had 0,1,2,226,227,228,229 the median is 226.. if we have 0,0,0,226,5000,10000,500000 the median is still 226... if we have 0,226,1023435453 the median is still 226
"Q:so why should we pick 226 as a special number..
"A:because that is a safe minimum transaction size, its not the absolute minimum, but its a safe minimum people expect to see.. and if we try to talk about this minimum in a way that makes people presume 226 is expected atleast 50% of the time. or the majority of the time.. we dont have to explain real data because then it is revealed that us blockstreamers are actually the "bigblockers".. where we offer less transactions per megabyte then the simple blocksize increase alone"

Yup, "I don't see blocks with 4000+ transactions as the median 226 would imply."
But, as pointed out it does appear to be the median.

I have asked Greg if he knows the average transaction size as that figure would indeed be more relevant here.

So Core claim 7200(?) median, mean or maximum transaction per block with segwit?
(compared to 4000(?) today, median?~)

[Lauda]

"Hyperbolic nonsense", yeah maybe, we all got an opinion. Some more credible than others. (ftr not a dig at Lauda)

It doesn't matter whether you have a opinion or not when it is logically wrong. Saying that Segwit will never make a difference is wrong. As soon as we start seeing Segwit transactions (i.e. we reach any kind of improvement, e.g. 1.05MB), we will notice the improvement.

A realistic 180% "after some time"?

Yes. That's what the last calculations done by aj (IIRC) on the mailing list show.

if every transaction, paying less fees to miners, was segwit?

What is this even supposed to mean?

I am saying I don't want segwit. At least not yet, untill it can be more tested and proven.

It has been in testing for more than 5 months now.

Correct, 2 mb is not actually needed today. 1.25 would suffice.

The go ahead and propose a properly designed BIP and not something improperly designed with added limitations such as the one that Gavin proposed.

If we don't say the same thing as "staff" we are abused?

Who was ever abused for disagreeing with staff members? I don't recall any examples of such.

shocking and ridiculous considering no thread here, discussion, goes without Laudas staff  "opinion")

There is no such thing as a "staff opinion". This is solely Lauda's opinion and is in no way related to the opinion of any other staff member or the forum itself.

[rizzlarolla]

"Hyperbolic nonsense", yeah maybe, we all got an opinion. Some more credible than others. (ftr not a dig at Lauda)

It doesn't matter whether you have a opinion or not when it is logically wrong. Saying that Segwit will never make a difference is wrong. As soon as we start seeing Segwit transactions (i.e. we reach any kind of improvement, e.g. 1.05MB), we will notice the improvement.

I'm sure you just read it wrong.

I mostly said segwit will take a long time to have any effect on block space.
but I did also say segwit will have no effect in the event it never gets adopted.
That is a possibility. It is not logically wrong. It maybe against your opinion.

[Syke]

"mean" is far more useful to estimate how many transactions are likely to fit in a block.

Nobody said that it wasn't.

So why are you talking about the median? It is a completely worthless statistic with regards to this topic.

[Lauda]

I mostly said segwit will take a long time to have any effect on block space. but I did also say segwit will have no effect in the event it never gets adopted. That is a possibility. It is not logically wrong. It maybe against your opinion.

Well then that is something else entirely. Posts that have weird formatting and/or punctuation can end up being interpreted wrongly. Are you talking about adoption (i.e. users) or activation (as in the Soft fork itself)? Because in the first case that assumption will never become true. In order for zero adoption everyone would have to move away from wallets that incorporate Segwit. What are the odds of that happening?

So why are you talking about the median? It is a completely worthless statistic with regards to this topic.

Because franky has been chasing both Maxwell and me (among others) around with his nonsense when he didn't even understand what median meant in the first place.

[Syke]

Because franky has been chasing both Maxwell and me (among others) around with his nonsense when he didn't even understand what median meant in the first place.

I still don't get it. Why would anyone waste any time calculating "median"? It's completely worthless.

[rizzlarolla]

I mostly said segwit will take a long time to have any effect on block space. but I did also say segwit will have no effect in the event it never gets adopted. That is a possibility. It is not logically wrong. It maybe against your opinion.

Well then that is something else entirely. Posts that have weird formatting and/or punctuation can end up being interpreted wrongly. Are you talking about adoption (i.e. users) or activation (as in the Soft fork itself)? Because in the first case that assumption will never become true. In order for zero adoption everyone would have to move away from wallets that incorporate Segwit. What are the odds of that happening?

Oh yes, sorry for the shabby punctuation. It made you read it wrong, which in turn caused you to dismiss me as irrelevant and illogical. My fault.

Re read to understand my points, now you see it is logical.
But with no activation there is no adoption.Is that correct?


(bitcoinfees.21.co also quote this 226 "median" number?)