Why Blockstream is against "contentious" hard forks - Control

[Lauda]

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

Median exists for a reason.

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

Well, obviously. If the Segwit soft fork does not get activated then there can be no adoption. However, I don't see a reason for which it should not get activated.

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

Yes, that is the median TX size.

[franky1]

If the Segwit soft fork does not get activated then there can be no adoption.

everyone can remember the promise that hard fork (everyone upgrading) was not needed because softforks dont need consensus, that segwit can be "compatible" with old nodes. and everything was honky-dory with fluffy clouds and unicorns flying to the moon.. and everyone gets to still be a full node and a free chocolate cookie

but here is a blockstreamer admitting that a softfork is not as soft as they first said.. if it was soft it could get activated with out any adoption.. which was the whole point of why people first loved segwit instead of hardforks
but now its actually admitted to require adoption just to activate, making it actually a harder-than soft fork.

now people are wising up that it need consensus and a high percentage of adoption to activate.... just like a hard fork

so here is a radical thought... you may need to sit down and take a few minutes to think about it..
wait for it..
here it comes..

include the block limit increase with segwit....

but before you cry your wet dream admiration's for blockstream.. remember this.. read it, sit back have a coffee and think outside of the box about what im actually about to say.. take a few minutes to let the thought settle in your mind before you shout out your blockstream admirations about why not to do it.

just because the blocklimit will be 2mb.. there is nothing in the rational world of reality that suddenly causes a block to bloat to 2mb in size instantly after activation just because the new limit exists....
the block limit is not a rule to say 'this is the the amount of data needed before we do anything'.. instead its about allowing anything from 0-2mb.
again for emphasis.. its not a rule that says only accept 2mb blocks.. but anything under 2mb(meaning 0-1mb can still be accepted)

EG in 2013 when blocks were finally allowed to surpass the 500k buglimit(related to databases) to then fully embrace the 1mb blocklimit.. blocks were not instantly 1mb in size.. miners were not ejaculating happiness that they can now bloat blocks instantly with 1mb of data..
instead it allowed a couple years to naturally grow at a natural pace..

so while we are now seeing that segwit actually requires people to upgrade, not just out of personal choice, but as a vote/consensus just to activate it.. (finally blockstreamers are starting to admit it) you might aswell increase the potential blocklimit tooo...thus allow for potential growth without needing the constant oliver twist tactics every couple years of "please sir can i have some more".

as for the proposal of just 1.05mb or 1.25mb.. that is also a short term thing that wont deter the oliver twist scenario for as long

but i can already predict 4 responses.
1. gmaxwell admitting all his code and features are meant for sidechains and he doesnt see the need to expand bitcoin or include features he is coding for bitcoin, things like CT wont even be in bitcoin... thus pretend bitcoin issues are not even in his remit to be involved in,
even if he has previously highlighted his features in context of bitcoin by mentioning the words bitcoin more often then his sidechains coin names while talking about his features.*
*https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt  - mentions(bitcoin:20 zerocoin:1 elements: 4)
2. luke pretending he is not part of the core-devs and his agreement to code the hardfork was not meant to be part of core, but he did enjoy the free vacation in asia.
3. lauda replies with some insult and not actually address the issue.
4. other blockstream fanboys, if not insulting, will atleast try to suggest that hard forks should only be about "classic" debate and not even consider core including a hard fork, followed by those same blockstream fanboys using buzzwords like bigblockers, gavinistas, and maybe even use some latin rhetoric they learned from each other without even checking the context of when or how it should be used.. before ofcourse running back to go play with their monero

[chopstick]

Blockstream needs to go, they are not competent. Solving scaling is easy. Raise the blocksize, as Satoshi intended. If they can't get segwit to work right or to be adopted, then bitcoin will never scale under the failed leadership of these fools, as they will never in a million years raise the blocksize. That will basically guarantee another coin to pass up bitcoin.

[franky1]

Blockstream needs to go, they are not competent. Solving scaling is easy. Raise the blocksize, as Satoshi intended. If they can't get segwit to work right or to be adopted, then bitcoin will never scale under the failed leadership of these fools, as they will never in a million years raise the blocksize. That will basically guarantee another coin to pass up bitcoin.

why do you think the blockstreamers are monero obsessed.. such as gmaxwell and the other REKT spouting clan.. they love altcoins.
why do you think bitcoin-devs are now concentrating on sidechains.. even gmaxwell has turned a proposed CT from being in bitcoin to now being just a sidechain thing.. even luke JR spends more time with the sidechains project then he does on bitcoin. luke Jr is literally salivating at the chance to merge mine lots of sidechains and grab all them rewards

side chains would be useless if bitcoin had the capacity it needed so its not hard to see why blockstreamers are so against logical capacity increases and instead want to twist bitcoin into being expensive to use unless you stop using traditional bitcoin features.

[hv_]

If the Segwit soft fork does not get activated then there can be no adoption.

everyone can remember the promise that hard fork (everyone upgrading) was not needed because softforks dont need consensus, that segwit can be "compatible" with old nodes. and everything was honky-dory with fluffy clouds and unicorns flying to the moon.. and everyone gets to still be a full node and a free chocolate cookie

but here is a blockstreamer admitting that a softfork is not as soft as they first said.. if it was soft it could get activated with out any adoption.. which was the whole point of why people first loved segwit instead of hardforks
but now its actually admitted to require adoption just to activate, making it actually a harder-than soft fork.

now people are wising up that it need consensus and a high percentage of adoption to activate.... just like a hard fork

so here is a radical thought... you may need to sit down and take a few minutes to think about it..
wait for it..
here it comes..

include the block limit increase with segwit....

but before you cry your wet dream admiration's for blockstream.. remember this.. read it, sit back have a coffee and think outside of the box about what im actually about to say.. take a few minutes to let the thought settle in your mind before you shout out your blockstream admirations about why not to do it.

just because the blocklimit will be 2mb.. there is nothing in the rational world of reality that suddenly causes a block to bloat to 2mb in size instantly after activation just because the new limit exists....
the block limit is not a rule to say 'this is the the amount of data needed before we do anything'.. instead its about allowing anything from 0-2mb.
again for emphasis.. its not a rule that says only accept 2mb blocks.. but anything under 2mb(meaning 0-1mb can still be accepted)

EG in 2013 when blocks were finally allowed to surpass the 500k buglimit(related to databases) to then fully embrace the 1mb blocklimit.. blocks were not instantly 1mb in size.. miners were not ejaculating happiness that they can now bloat blocks instantly with 1mb of data..
instead it allowed a couple years to naturally grow at a natural pace..

so while we are now seeing that segwit actually requires people to upgrade, not just out of personal choice, but as a vote/consensus just to activate it.. (finally blockstreamers are starting to admit it) you might aswell increase the potential blocklimit tooo...thus allow for potential growth without needing the constant oliver twist tactics every couple years of "please sir can i have some more".

as for the proposal of just 1.05mb or 1.25mb.. that is also a short term thing that wont deter the oliver twist scenario for as long

but i can already predict 4 responses.
1. gmaxwell admitting all his code and features are meant for sidechains and he doesnt see the need to expand bitcoin or include features he is coding for bitcoin, things like CT wont even be in bitcoin... thus pretend bitcoin issues are not even in his remit to be involved in,
even if he has previously highlighted his features in context of bitcoin by mentioning the words bitcoin more often then his sidechains coin names while talking about his features.*
*https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt  - mentions(bitcoin:20 zerocoin:1 elements: 4)
2. luke pretending he is not part of the core-devs and his agreement to code the hardfork was not meant to be part of core, but he did enjoy the free vacation in asia.
3. lauda replies with some insult and not actually address the issue.
4. other blockstream fanboys, if not insulting, will atleast try to suggest that hard forks should only be about "classic" debate and not even consider core including a hard fork, followed by those same blockstream fanboys using buzzwords like bigblockers, gavinistas, and maybe even use some latin rhetoric they learned from each other without even checking the context of when or how it should be used.. before ofcourse running back to go play with their monero

Long reading - one meaning: WE NEED BOTH (and  more for sure in new Releases)

Still  2MB  HF  would just do fine - but it's  toooo   easy and nobody gets the cheers & credits for implementing.

So than do BOTH and mess up the code a bit and get the merrits.

[chopstick]

They don't want to do both. It's Blockstream's way or the highway. If something goes wrong, they will just declare "Bitcoin can't scale" and blame it all on bitcoin. Wow. Amazing leadership guys!

[rizzlarolla]

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

Sorry guys, Greg not interested.

Just waffle these days.

[rizzlarolla]

as for the proposal of just 1.05mb or 1.25mb.. that is also a short term thing that wont deter the oliver twist scenario for as long

It would put bitcoin on a different path, maybe.
segwit is dangerous and unnecessary at this point.

They don't want to do both. It's Blockstream's way or the highway. If something goes wrong, they will just declare "Bitcoin can't scale" and blame it all on bitcoin. Wow. Amazing leadership guys!

It doesn't matter. It is not eternal. The sudden hard fork option is always waiting.
A hard fork should not be taken lightly, ergo will take time but is unstoppable and sudden(ish) when achieved. (predictably out of desperation)

[franky1]

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

Sorry guys, Greg not interested.

Just waffle these days.

easy maths
average blocksize
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days

divided by average transactions per block
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=30days

10th may: 721,200byte / 1543tx = 467byte/tx
11th may: 772,400byte / 1725tx = 447byte/tx
12th may: 792,500byte / 1642tx = 482byte/tx

then ill skip a few to highlight the high of that data
19th may: 951,900byte / 1728tx = 550byte/tx

and the low of that data
23rd may: 587,600byte / 1095tx = 536byte/tx

on a previous post i also done some maths on 10 blocks based purely on the time of posting.. rather than the generalised numbers of blockchain.info daily stats

nowhere was i seeing any pattern that related to 226-250 transaction averages.
and no where in the reality of real people making real transactions does 226-250 have any big correlation

[rizzlarolla]

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

Sorry guys, Greg not interested.

Just waffle these days.

easy maths
average blocksize
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=30days

divided by average transactions per block
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=30days

10th may: 721,200byte / 1543tx = 467byte/tx
11th may: 772,400byte / 1725tx = 447byte/tx
12th may: 792,500byte / 1642tx = 482byte/tx

then ill skip a few to highlight the high of that data
19th may: 951,900byte / 1728tx = 550byte/tx

and the low of that data
23rd may: 587,600byte / 1095tx = 536byte/tx

on a previous post i also done some maths on 10 blocks based purely on the time of posting.. rather than the generalised numbers of blockstreams daily stats

nowhere was i seeing any pattern that related to 226-250 transaction averages.
and no where in the reality of real people making real transactions does 226-250 have any big correlation

I think your right.

But when you tell us Greg laugh's. Then Icebreaker mock's. Carlton mock's and finally Lauda mock's.
I wanted Greg to answer, as he was bothered to laugh at you.

[btcusury]

^ I would mock too, but I suspect you are here for that. I do laugh at your ridiculous insistence on remaining ignorant.

[gmaxwell]

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

It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fees, which I believe was the original topic.

[Lauda]

It would put bitcoin on a different path, maybe. Segwit is dangerous and unnecessary at this point.

Correction: A block size limit increase is dangerous and unnecessary.

I think your right. But when you tell us Greg laugh's. Then Icebreaker mock's. Carlton mock's and finally Lauda mock's.
I wanted Greg to answer, as he was bothered to laugh at you.

I have no idea why you would pull me into this one. I have used various average TX sizes when doing some basic calculations in regards to capacity, and have even used sizes larger than what franky is showing here today. It comes down to the nature of the use. My transations are is closer to the median in size than to the average.

[MyownBoss]

Rofl "You are all blockstream shills!!!" Is the best thing ive read all day. I can finally go to bed 😊

.                 ~Paid for by Blockstream~

[The00Dustin]

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

It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fees, which I believe was the original topic.

Assuming the original topic was also on the forum or some other public space, a link to said original topic would be really useful here...

[franky1]

I have no idea why you would pull me into this one. I have used various average TX sizes when doing some basic calculations in regards to capacity, and have even used sizes larger than what franky is showing here today. It comes down to the nature of the use. My transations are is closer to the median in size than to the average.

this is because lauda only has a couple addresses and only pays one person at a time. so his experience is limited to his own usage..

however people that have re-use addresses where funds are spread over multiple addresses, have larger txs
however exchanges batching customer withdrawals together so there are multiple outputs have larger tx's
however pools splitting up the block reward to pay the many individual miners have larger tx's
however merchants, services, businesses who collect or spend from or to multiple parties have larger tx's

so trying to brush the average transaction to be "just like lauda's" is a mindset of someone who cannot think beyond themselves.

i find it funny that lauda tries to say bitcoin is great most transactions are 226bytes..
and then.. he says this..

- You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction

Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change).

its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.

[Lauda]

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

It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fees, which I believe was the original topic.

Assuming the original topic was also on the forum or some other public space, a link to said original topic would be really useful here...

There was no real 'topic' here. You can only find a few individuals failing with their ad hominem attempts. It usually just proves to be a waste of time to interact with them.

~Paid for by Blockstream~

I always suspected that you were paid by them!

[rizzlarolla]

i find it funny that lauda tries to say bitcoin is great most transactions are 226bytes..
and then.. he says this..

- You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction

Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change).

its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.

Ok, so the median tx is 226 (and never seems to change)
But the average tx is twice that? (and varies)

I am asking 21.co why they use median tx size to calculate fees.
Their first reply said "Median is the same thing as Average." !!!
(which we all now know it isn't)
Goes to show what the general perception is I would think.

Greg say's about median, "It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fee,"
How so?

If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)

Franky, are Core saying segwit will handle 7200 tx per block? (link please)

[franky1]

i find it funny that lauda tries to say bitcoin is great most transactions are 226bytes..
and then.. he says this..

- You are making a 1 input 1 output transaction

Bad assumption. If we have learned anything, then we know that the majority of the TX's are much bigger. If anyone is wondering how they would create a TX with 1 input and 1 output: e.g. Pick 1 input, send to exact same amount to another address while deducting the fee from the amount (there must be no change).

its either he never believed his own stupidity of the 226byte sales pitch.. or he is finally wising up and being honest to people.
if its the second one. then well done lauda you have finally said something correct.. please continue and be honest from now on.

Ok, so the median tx is 226 (and never seems to change)
But the average tx is twice that? (and varies)

I am asking 21.co why they use median tx size to calculate fees.
Their first reply said "Median is the same thing as Average." !!!
(which we all now know it isn't)
Goes to show what the general perception is I would think.

Greg say's about median, "It's a great statistic if you're talking about typical transaction fee,"
How so?

If average tx is twice median tx, will this not lead to under paying tx fees?
(i am asking 21.co also)

Franky, are Core saying segwit will handle 7200 tx per block? (link please)

it depends on which variant you read.

for instance if we naively go by the every tx is 226byte right now..
1mb block= ~4400tx so segwit would be 7920(4400*1.8 )

then others say that the average is 400bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2500tx so 1mb segwit would be 4500tx(2500*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 9500

then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200

but remember a 2mb segwit is not actually 2mb of real data.. its actually 3.6mb where 1.6mb is still there but blockstream wont talk about it because "there is no witness"
also remember there are extra bytes being added for the other features, flags, etc.. so the blocks would actually be much higher then 3.6mb when a block is 'full'.

but seeing as Gmaxwell has withdrawn his plan to add CT to bitcoin(instead trying to promote his zerocoin, monero and elements). the bloat wont be as much as the over 5mb from the original plan.
so lets just take the stats of
3.6mb(real data) for 7200tx as a guideline expectation if there is 2mb blocklimit included in 2017..
1.8mb(real data) for 3600tx as a guideline expectation if there is 1mb blocklimit remaining in 2017..

[The00Dustin]

for instance if we naively go by the every tx is 226byte right now..
1mb block= ~4400tx so segwit would be 7920(4400*1.8 )

then others say that the average is 400bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2500tx so 1mb segwit would be 4500tx(2500*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 9500

then others say that the average is 500bytes but core will eventually allow 2mb in 2017
1mb block = 2000tx so 1mb segwit would be 3600tx(2000*1.8 ) and 2mb segwit 7200

but remember a 2mb segwit is not actually 2mb of real data.. its actually 3.6mb where 1.6mb is still there but blockstream wont talk about it because "there is no witness"
also remember there are extra bytes being added for the other features, flags, etc.. so the blocks would actually be much higher then 3.6mb when a block is 'full'.

but seeing as Gmaxwell has withdrawn his plan to add CT to bitcoin. the bloat wont be as much as over 5mb. so lets just take the stats of the 3.6mb as a guideline expectation..

7200tx for 3.6mb
or if we were to stick with traditional transactions and just a blocksize increase.
at 226byte tx 3mb block without segwit 13200tx (15400tx if blocks 3.5mb)

Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, the closest your quoted post provides to such a comparison is as follows:
15400tx (blocksize 3.5 mb) @ vs 15840tx (segwit w/ 2mb)
It's not accurate since 3.5 mb < 2mb segwit, but none of the other numbers line up at all.

To be clear, I'm in the hard fork camp.  I'm not 100% pro or anti regarding segwit or blocksize, but I am anti regarding a soft fork for a major change.  However, I'm calling you out because you shouldn't be playing their game.  It isn't right when they're playing it anti blocksize, and playing the same game anti segwit doesn't make it any better.