lulz

Haha nice
Haven't seen this before

lol 1st ive seen this, dont get it  

You'd be surprised how many people would be mislead by jokes like these and end up thinking that 'high' or 'unlimited' block sizes are a true possibility. The primary result of those is the lack of knowledge, or false knowledge. I do have to admit that the image has a bit of humor to it.

---

I'd call false analogy on that one though.

It's not as simple as that. What does "not being allowed" to run nodes on a decent computer mean? I've seen a lot of people throw around words without actually backing them up with specifics. Does this imply a lack of storage space, an inadequate internet connection/bandwidth, not being able to validate on time? I do recall a presentation where the potential of 'never being able to catch up' as a new node as presented (I think this was Hong Kong Scaling 2015).

Yes 1 MB is of very large size when compared to millions of blocks. As a database engineer 1 MB is very very small for me but the same is opposite for bitcoin because If we gather all blocks then it would a very very large data. 1MB x million= Trillions.

lol funny to see that now that core are saying yes to 4mb. lauda has done a complete 180 change from his old rhetoric of 2mb is too much.
come on lauda. are you going to atleast admit your last year of tripe was just propaganda and misinformation to sway your flock to stick with the scheme to make bitcoin more controlled.

where is all the 2mb wont work on a RasPi now? (evaporated as soon as core wanted BIG BLOCKS)
where's all your 1mbit/sec internet (75mbyte per 10min) is not fast enough for 2mb? (evaporated as soon as core wanted BIG BLOCKS)
where is all of your "the internet cant cope", (while millions are livestreaming HD gaming)? (evaporated as soon as core wanted BIG BLOCKS)
where is all of your doomsday prophecies? (evaporated as soon as core wanted BIG BLOCKS)

oh wait. now you been spoon fed from your controllers, you now want to pretend it was never a problem, even after a year of saying it was a problem.
oh well it only took you a year to wake up.

So do we get this? The guy see a cute little dog, and think it's cute. The dog says, 1mb is too big. So the guy realize that the dog is retarded, so his opinion is of no use? Is this a cartoon targetted at small blockers, to say that they should not have a opinion on block sizes, because they are retarded?

I think both sides are retarded, and should stop attacking each other. If I could draw a cartoon, I would draw two dogs fighting over 1 bone, and whilst they are fighting a 3rd dog steal the bone. Think about that, with all the other Alt coins and Blockchain based technologies licking their lips, for Bitcoin to fail. ^hmmmm^

Franky1, am I correct to assume that the 4 mb blocks that core is proposing now are the direct result of a proposed soft fork for segregated witness and not a hard fork?

In that case, can you explain or link to an article that explains how it can reduce the size of transactions in the blocks?

lauda, so much fail in your posts..
you say core isnt going for 4mb data per block??
here

go research it. and have a nice day.
edit: hint 4000000 = 4mill bytes = 4000 kbytes = 4mb
EDIT: seems lauda still thinks 4mb doesnt exist in cores code.
here ill even link him right to THEIR consensus code
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h

now lets see lauda continue to pretend its not the github that is literally saying it.. and instead lets laugh while he thinks im talking about unicorns..
really time he starts to learn to read code.. as his fails are going beyond logic

and to norris
although the blockweight which is real world data combined that nodes will be transmitting to each other as FULL NODES, the way its formatted is that the txid, inputs are in the baseblock(main block area) as just a bait and switch to not need old nodes to upgrade, but left only seeing uncheckable data inside the:
other things like a second txid, signatures and eventually 'payment code' (which maxwell wants to rename*) will add more bloat,
*first payment codes, then confidential payment codes, then Pedersen commitments, and who knows whats next

but this extra data will be outside of the baseblock(meaning uncheckable by old nodes).. but included in the blockweight (combined/serialised block) which is the real full data that is actually transmitted in the real world by updated full nodes.

in short although taking the signatures out of the baseblock allows more txdata into baseblock.. things like signatures and the second txid dont just disappear.. they still need to be transmitted. so once you brush away all the fluffy false promises of 1.8x at 1mb and look at the REAL bytes and megabytes transmitted between updated FULL NODES and then look at the transaction count to work out a transaction size of real full data..

it only allows for upto 1.8x capacity compared to today. because all they are cutting out of the baseblock is the signature. nothing more, just the signature. but then adding alot more data outside the baseblock

so its not 4mb=4x capacity. its just 4mb=1.8xcapacity.. because capacity is still limited to whats in the base block

and those numbers are actually numbers spouted out from core devs and their fanboys.

but i would love to see lauda fail at explaining why 'static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;' exists in actual code, knowing he hasnt read any code to even realise it... as i really wanna see him backtrack and admit that his deception for the last year of '2mb bloat is bad' has failed