Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.

[zimmah]

2 MB is inherently dangerous

No it's not.

We can safely increase the limit to at least 4MB right now, and there won't be a problem.

It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.

The reason of the blocksize limit was not decentralization, not safety, but anti-spam.

The blocks aren't full of spam, and the ant-spam measure is doing more harm than good right now, it's time to remove it while we work on a solution to keep the blocksize small without sacrificing security or throughput.      

Also it's ridiculous to say 2MB blocksize is dangerous while saying we should get 2MB later. f it's not dangerous later it's not dangerous now either.

though the internet is proven to be fast for hundred of MILLIONS of people as shown by all the countries doing livestreaming to prove its not a dream. the community accept some places can get over 100mb/s

500 Mb/s (Down and Up) is available to the public as well. (I have that internet as a regular user).
Pretty sure that's available for reasonable prices in most countries nowadays.

I know it's not the 'average internet', but it's available, and it will become standard eventually. As with all technology, the 'rich' are only a couple of years ahead of the mainstream.

[Lauda]

No it's not. We can safely increase the limit to at least 4MB right now, and there won't be a problem.

Yes it is and no we can not.

It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.

The BU testing methodology is garbage and should not be used as 'evidence' for anything.

The reason of the blocksize limit was not decentralization, not safety, but anti-spam.

Both safety and anti-spam.

The blocks aren't full of spam

You can't prove this and you know it.

Also it's ridiculous to say 2MB blocksize is dangerous while saying we should get 2MB later. f it's not dangerous later it's not dangerous now either.

No, it is not. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Quadratic validation time without Segwit. I highly doubt you even understand the big O notation.

[zimmah]

Exactly, it's just a spin-off of the actual bitcoin blockchain .
I don't care about the name bitcoin classic, unlimited or I don't know...

So introducing confusion in addition to the media portraying Bitcoin as a joke due to that is what you want?

the important thing is that they increase the blocksize and add other few interesting things.

Fun fact: Neither one of those teams have developed anything worth incorporating into Bitcoin Core. Don't get me started on idiotic ideas such as "header-first mining".

We never wanted a split, we just want bitcoin to be available to everyone.

It's you who wants to artificially limit bitcoin. Go ahead, limit bitcoin, but we will leave you and your Cripplecoin behind and fork bitcoin to get bitcoin back as it was supposed to be. A currency for the people.

No it's not. We can safely increase the limit to at least 4MB right now, and there won't be a problem.

Yes it is and no we can not.

It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.

The BU testing methodology is garbage and should not be used as 'evidence' for anything.

The reason of the blocksize limit was not decentralization, not safety, but anti-spam.

Both safety and anti-spam.

The blocks aren't full of spam

You can't prove this and you know it.

Also it's ridiculous to say 2MB blocksize is dangerous while saying we should get 2MB later. f it's not dangerous later it's not dangerous now either.

No, it is not. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Quadratic validation time without Segwit. I highly doubt you even understand the big O notation.

Of course everything you disagree with is garbage in your eyes.

The facts still state that you are wrong, and 4MB blocksizes are perfectly safe. 20MB with xthin is also perfectly safe. But i'm happy with 4MB for now, or even 2MB until we need more.

I do know (and so does everyone else) that the blocks grew over time and for the past several months most blocks have been 900+ kB. mostly legitimate transactions.

No one has the money to set up a several months long non-stop spam attack. This is all legitimate users and you know it.

If you claim to not know this is legimate users, you're just plain stupid.     

Quadratric validation time doesn't matter if you just limit the transaction size to 1MB or lower.

[Lauda]

We never wanted a split, we just want bitcoin to be available to everyone.

If you really think idea behind these controversial fork attempts is that, then I'm sorry to tell you, but you've been deceived. You may want that, which is perfectly fine, but that's not the intent of the people who started with the controversial forks.

The facts still state that you are wrong, and 4MB blocksizes are perfectly safe. 20MB with xthin is also perfectly safe. But i'm happy with 4MB for now, or even 2MB until we need more.

Saying "xx MB block size is safe" is wrong. Saying "xx MB block size is safe if we limit the TX size to xx or less" may be true. These two statements are inherently different, ergo I'm not wrong.

No one has the money to set up a several months long non-stop spam attack.

This got to be a bad joke, right? A fair amount of people have enough money to spam up the network for a very long time.

This is all legitimate users and you know it.

Please post the testing methodology that extracts 'real user transactions' from the pool of all transactions, i.e. excludes 'spam transactions'. I'm sure everybody would like to know how this revolutionary method works.

Quadratric validation time doesn't matter if you just limit the transaction size to 1MB or lower.

The statement contradicts itself. It matters until you add even more limits to Bitcoin.

[franky1]

im laughing here.

i think its time lauda goes spend a few hours to ask his friends the difference between xthin and headers first
Edit.. also compact blocks..
ill give him a hint. they all dont send the whole block in one go. they send the headers first, in both cases.

i think its time lauda goes spend a few hours to ask his friends the difference core 1mb base 4mbweight  and 2mb base 4mb weight.
ill give him a hint, they both have linear validation, they both have all the other fluffy features. but it actually increases the txdata in the baseblock to give REAL proper capacity.

once you have researched what they all actually are. then come back, without a core fanboy hat on. and instead with a coding logic hat on. basing your reply on actual real world usage, actual features involved and actual reality scenarios.
if i see you one more time basing your opinion not on code facts, but pure opinion of something just because of WHO. then you are no better than a racist who cannot see beyond the who

in short i want to see lauda approach the debate with technicals and not the simple analogy of BU=warewolves and Classic=vampire, kill kill kill

[Lauda]

i think its time lauda goes spend a few hours to ask his friends the difference between xthin and headers first

Again, I have no "friends" to ask. Anyhow, both of those proposals are such garbage that looking into them is a waste of time.

ill give hm a hint.

If anything, history has taught us that the information provided by you is false in most cases. Please let me know once miners measure 95% node adoption.

[BitcoinPenny]

Best. Thread title. Ever. 

Regards,
Chris

[jbreher]

The problem is that these "other implementations" only have half-baked, horribly coded improvements.

Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".

[jbreher]

no way is any miner ever going to support this.

You do, of course, realize that if one lonely cpu starts mining upon this chain, you will have been proven utterly wrong?

Not to mention the amount of botnets that will hop onto this bandwagon.

Oh wait - self-contradiction in one neat paragraph - quite an achievement!

an implementation of BitPay's adaptive block size algorithm, adjusting in the range 2MB-4MB

Unsafe without Segwit,

Well, no. Segwit does absolutely nothing to make larger blocks safe. Although other changes bundled into The SegWit Omnibus Changeset do. Which of course are available for other implementations to adopt, should they so desire.

[Lauda]

once you have researched what they all actually are.
-snip-

You yourself have no idea what they all actually are.

Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".

There isn't an extensive code review of such an implementation by myself (probably not by anyone, as I haven't seen one). That's not the point though. The point was that 'these people' are throwing around assertions regarding the safety of random block sizes just because 'it's fine one some test-net'.

You do, of course, realize that if one lonely cpu starts mining upon this chain, you will have been proven utterly wrong?

I was talking about the current miners of Bitcoin.

Oh wait - self-contradiction in one neat paragraph - quite an achievement!

It's not a contradiction; read the above.

Well, no. Segwit does absolutely nothing to make larger blocks safe.

Yes, it does actually, since there's no such thing as "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset".

[jbreher]

It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.

The BU testing methodology is garbage and should not be used as 'evidence' for anything.

Bald assertion devoid of any supporting evidence is duly noted.

The blocks aren't full of spam

You can't prove this and you know it.

Prove it? You can't even define it!

I highly doubt you even understand the big O notation.

Your demonstrated pride in mastering this oh-so-advanced concept </s> is simply adorable.

[Lauda]

Bald assertion devoid of any supporting evidence is duly noted.

Fight fire-with-fire, or bald assertions-with bald-assertions when obviously reason isn't adequate.

Prove it? You can't even define it!

This is actually true. We don't even have a clear definition of 'spam', and yet some throw out the claims that blocks are filled with 'legit' transactions.

Your demonstrated pride in mastering this oh-so-advanced concept </s> is simply adorable.

Sarcasm is pointless, and adorable is not an attribute worth pinning to this. A point has been made, and the point is correct.

[jbreher]

The problem is that these "other implementations" only have half-baked, horribly coded improvements.

Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".

There isn't an extensive code review of such an implementation by myself (probably not by anyone, as I haven't seen one).

Well, at least you admit when you are caught making shit up on order to influence a debate. Does that make you honest? No - it makes you a liar that has been caught in a lie.

Well, no. Segwit does absolutely nothing to make larger blocks safe.

Yes, it does actually, since there's no such thing as "The SegWit Omnibus Changeset".

Sure there is. You may not recognize it under that name. Hell, you may not recognize it at all. But there is certainly a difference between the feature 'Segregated Witness', and the bundled code release that includes several other features as well.

Oh - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1530463.msg15417685#msg15417685

[Mr Felt]

I haven't been following this thread, so excuse the question if it has already been asked and answered:

Setting aside areas of technical disagreement for a second, what are the issues/areas for which there is technical agreement?

1. 21M coins
2. What else?
3. etc. ?

[zimmah]

No one has the money to set up a several months long non-stop spam attack.

This got to be a bad joke, right? A fair amount of people have enough money to spam up the network for a very long time.

Right, I'm sorry.

Bill gates, would you please stop spamming the bitcoin? The Core team already caught up on it and they aren't falling for it.    

I haven't been following this thread, so excuse the question if it has already been asked and answered:

Setting aside areas of technical disagreement for a second, what are the issues/areas for which there is technical agreement?

1. 21M coins
2. What else?
3. etc. ?

Maybe 10 minute average block time.

But maybe some people disagree on that too.

[franky1]

once you have researched what they all actually are.
-snip-

You yourself have no idea what they all actually are.

ive read the code of each. but find it funny that you dont know they all do the same basic function once you wash away the fluffy buzzwords.
you should have don yourself a favour last year and actually learned some C++ to actually actively engage in some real understanding of bitcoin.

but have a happy year with you subliminal mind programming set to:
BU=warewolves and Classic=vampire, kill kill kill.. core=king devote devote devote

[DooMAD]

It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.

The BU testing methodology is garbage and should not be used as 'evidence' for anything.

In fairness, you would sound far more convincing if you actually did a bit of research and didn't spurt out things like:

Not to mention that if we moved to BU today (to their block size limit setting which I at a weird number; 16 MB I think?), the network would likely end up useless due to DOS attacks.

Based on that, it sounds like you're not even remotely educated on what these alternative implementations are or how they work.  You seemingly just regurgitate opinions you've read elsewhere without even bothering to check the legitimacy of it.

The problem is that these "other implementations" only have half-baked, horribly coded improvements.

Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".

There isn't an extensive code review of such an implementation by myself (probably not by anyone, as I haven't seen one). That's not the point though.

It's precisely the point.  You're slamming something you haven't even attempted to comprehend.  People are now falling over each other to point out that fact and you're making it very easy for them.

i think its time lauda goes spend a few hours to ask his friends the difference between xthin and headers first

Again, I have no "friends" to ask. Anyhow, both of those proposals are such garbage that looking into them is a waste of time.

Again with the garbage assumptions.  Perhaps you could explain why you're skeptical about the proposals and in the process prove that you actually understand them.  Or you could dismiss them as "garbage" and we'll all assume that you're just guessing again because you read something in passing and decided it must be true without questioning it.

[Lauda]

Does that make you honest? No - it makes you a liar that has been caught in a lie.

No. I was proving a point which you seem to have missed.

ive read the code of each.

What a nice joke.

Based on that, it sounds like you're not even remotely educated on what these alternative implementations are or how they work.  

I'm "educated" enough about BU to not be interested in their work at this time. The reason that I used the "16 MB" was because somebody was advocating that 16 MB blocks were safe, which is obviously false.

You seemingly just regurgitate opinions you've read elsewhere without even bothering to check the legitimacy of it.

If that was the case, then I'd be supporting Bitcoin Classic and BU.

It's precisely the point.  

No. That was a demonstration of the assertions being throw out by pro-BU members around here.

Again with the garbage assumptions.  Perhaps you could explain why you're skeptical about the proposals and in the process prove that you actually understand them.  

You tell me to do research, and then afterwards want me to explain why e.g. header-first mining is a bad idea? How about you do the research this time?
Obviously we're long past any technical debate in this thread, and are at a point where the mindset being received is in the lines of "No, you're wrong. xx MB blocks are super safe. Core is evil".

[franky1]

things lauda needs to learn

C++
explicit limit vs consensus limit
consensual vs controversial
reading code not social distraction
definition of hypocrisy
who is spoon-feeding him and why they do it

now then.
the current ACTUAL debate is not laudas meandered hypocrisy of the doomsdays of controversial forks of 16mb by groups of warewolves and vampires preventing linear.

but consensual '2base-4mbweight' buffer increase by EVERYONE in the community releasing an implementation. so that fans of kings, warewolves and vampires can all happily stick with their favourites and still have the open choice to decentrally vote in or out of a safe increase of capacity which still allows the kings to have their way too, and no one thinking they have to jump camps to get it.
yes this means the quadratics doomsday is also a moot point because segwit still works
again it does not mean segwit wont function by increasing the 2mb base, so relax lauda your kings still have a job and are not sacked
again this does not mean any excess bloat that kings are not also accepting as safe

[zimmah]

once you have researched what they all actually are.
-snip-

You yourself have no idea what they all actually are.

ive read the code of each. but find it funny that you dont know they all do the same basic function once you wash away the fluffy buzzwords.
you should have don yourself a favour last year and actually learned some C++ to actually actively engage in some real understanding of bitcoin.

but have a happy year with you subliminal mind programming set to:
BU=warewolves and Classic=vampire, kill kill kill.. core=king devote devote devote

I'm convinced most people support Core not because they actually think it's better, but because they don't know any better.

The main forums (this one, and /r/bitcoin) both support Core as the only 'official' bitcoin wallet. Most users probably don't even know about Classic/Unlimited/XT, and if they do, they don't know they are just as 'official' as Core.    

The thing about decentralization is, there isn't one official client. There are multiple.      

The 'official' client is the client that gets the most support from the users/miners/merchants/etc.      

I think it's wrong to have only Core being advertised on bitcointalk.org and /r/bitcoin. It gives the wrong impression and it's very centralized.      

Basically, this header needs to be more neutral, and also include links to the latest Classic, Unlimited and XT clients. As well as a link to a page that explains the difference in a fair and factual way.       

The way it is done now only leads to centralization of bitcoin.