A few lines of code...

[DGulari]

Changing a few lines of code to remove a temporary limit (1MB) is a tiny change to return to the original bitcoin. 

SegWit is a ridiculous AltCoin.  Segwit is a piece of garbage that barely improves transaction bandwidth and comes with a very high price of having to recode a bunch of stuff for all users/wallets/etc. 

How in the world did anyone every believe SegWit was a good thing? 

We need 8MB now.  Let's get back to the original bitcoin.

[mikewirth]

Yep.  Lightning is a very interesting alternative money system with loads of complexities and unknowns.  However, it is not Bitcoin.  It is something else entirely. 

[DooMAD]

I'm of the view that anyone is free to modify and run whatever code they wish.  That means I'm absolutely fine with people testing the waters with proposals like SegWit and Lightning, but by the same token, that also means alternative clients that propose changes to the blocksize are equally acceptable.  Complaining about one and not the other would be highly hypocritical.  Further, it just results in the usual 'Side A' vs 'Side B' spats we frequently witness on the forums and no one is willing to compromise.  Anyone who thinks they can dictate what code people should and shouldn't run is more than welcome to use a closed-source coin and leave Bitcoin alone.

[mikewirth]

I'm of the view that anyone is free to modify and run whatever code they wish.  That means I'm absolutely fine with people testing the waters with proposals like SegWit and Lightning, but by the same token, that also means alternative clients that propose changes to the blocksize are equally acceptable.  Complaining about one and not the other would be highly hypocritical.  Further, it just results in the usual 'Side A' vs 'Side B' spats we frequently witness on the forums and no one is willing to compromise.  Anyone who thinks they can dictate what code people should and shouldn't run is more than welcome to use a closed-source coin and leave Bitcoin alone.

But are you equally fine with a commercial entity like Blockstream having undue influence of key Core devs who continuously push out others like Mike Hearn, Gavin, Ver et al so they can push an inferior and proprietary scaling solution like Lightning into effect where a good free alternative exists?  

G.Maxwell has vigorously dreamed up reasons why blocks >1Mb can't be used when Satoshi always intended on chain scaling and much bigger blocks.  Maxwell needs this 1Mb limit to drive demand for Lightning.  G.Max also needs SegWit to make Lightning work.  Segwit yields a tiny capacity improvement with heavy overhead and new attack vectors.

[Turbo2]

Yep.  Lightning is a very interesting alternative money system with loads of complexities and unknowns.  However, it is not Bitcoin.  It is something else entirely. 

Agreed. Very different set of principles and rules apply to the LN than the original BTC network....

I signed up for BTC network rules, NOT LN.

[Carlton Banks]

Sounds like a massive gap in the market is opneing up, then.

The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?

[DooMAD]

I'm of the view that anyone is free to modify and run whatever code they wish.  That means I'm absolutely fine with people testing the waters with proposals like SegWit and Lightning, but by the same token, that also means alternative clients that propose changes to the blocksize are equally acceptable.  Complaining about one and not the other would be highly hypocritical.  Further, it just results in the usual 'Side A' vs 'Side B' spats we frequently witness on the forums and no one is willing to compromise.  Anyone who thinks they can dictate what code people should and shouldn't run is more than welcome to use a closed-source coin and leave Bitcoin alone.

But are you equally fine with a commercial entity like Blockstream having undue influence of key Core devs who continuously push out others like Mike Hearn, Gavin, Ver et al so they can push an inferior and proprietary scaling solution like Lightning into effect where a good free alternative exists?  

G.Maxwell has vigorously dreamed up reasons why blocks >1Mb can't be used when Satoshi always intended on chain scaling and much bigger blocks.  Maxwell needs this 1Mb limit to drive demand for Lightning.  G.Max also needs SegWit to make Lightning work.  Segwit yields a tiny capacity improvement with heavy overhead and new attack vectors.

It's certainly a concern.  There are some highly undesirable scenarios that could arise if development becomes fully centralised behind a commercial entity that lawmakers could easily gain leverage over.  I'd hope that people would be wary of the potential for government approved code, but would still defend people's right to run it if that's what they really wanted.  I don't think Blockstream are the devil, but at the same time, I don't want them to be in full control of development.

[franky1]

Sounds like a massive gap in the market is opneing up, then.

The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?

lol carlton you have lost all arguments, misunderstood all the tech and all you can do is make fake doomsdays to make everyone that is not friendly to gmaxwell look like they are doing what gmaxwell is doing. 
you have no clue.

we all know you love gmaxwell and will follow him to the end of the earth, but can you just skip a few stages and just go play with his altcoin. which is the obvious end goal for you, because its obvious you dont care about bitcoin.

[mikewirth]

Sounds like a massive gap in the market is opneing up, then.

The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?

Listen dumbass - SegWit and Lightning ARE the alts!!!!  Bitcoin, the original Bitcoin Didn't have segWit bullshit, off-chain bullshit, or even 1MB block limits.  

The real Bitcoin got hijacked by assholes that are trying to shove their crap on top of the original.  The original works fine and the original anticipated 8MB (and greater) blocks.  


The fucking alt is Blockstream/SegWit/Lightning/Thermos/Maxwell

[Carlton Banks]

Answer the question, guys.


You stand to become much richer if you back Gavin Andresen's plans, launched as an altcoin. You could be 5% each of the entire GavinCoin market cap, and you've had months and months to prove how superior Gavin's coin is, by launching it. So why are you not doing that?

[mikewirth]

Answer the question, guys.


You stand to become much richer if you back Gavin Andresen's plans, launched as an altcoin. You could be 5% each of the entire GavinCoin market cap, and you've had months and months to prove how superior Gavin's coin is, by launching it. So why are you not doing that?

I'll answer the question -
Blockstream is the Alt!!

>8MB blocksize was in effect the day the first block got mined.  <-----    The real Bitcoin!!!

[franky1]

lol carlton keep digging a deeper hole.

guess what
other implementations are running right now. people can use their traditional keypairs in them right now. nothing has broken and users can transaction without issue.

however
segwit uses different keypairs, where other older implementations cannot validate signatures of segwit keypairs. segwit keypairs cannot directly move funds back to traditional keypairs without having to spend funds twice to get it back to traditional configuration that can be validated by traditional implementations.
meaning its a headache to transact with others.
segwit makes traditional implementations no longer full validating nodes. and instead just limp wristed relay nodes.

oh and to add
i know you will try comparing other implementations consensus rules as the same as the ethereum intentional fork.

but here is the issue you keep missing.. ethereum added  --oppose-dao-fork INTENTIONALLY. because they didnt want the consensus orphaning mechanism to sort it out.

ethereum split away from the consensus mechanism intentionally
segwit has a work around to avoid the consensus mechanism intentionally

yet,
other implementations want to utilise the consensus mechanism PROPERLY to get a true upgrade.
the funnier part is that segwit fanboys can actually join the real proper consensus mechanism and still get segwit features aswell as a true and proper capacity buffer upgrade all in one go..
EG 2mb base 4mb weight.

but no segwit fanboys want to keep the base at 1mb (1mb base 4mb weight.) and have fake 'consent' and not tell people the falseness of such

carlton. i wish one day you would actually take your "Gmaxwell/adamback for btc president" hat off and instead put a "decentralised logical bitcoin upgrade" hat on.

[Carlton Banks]

Gentlemen, you are having a serious problem answering a simple question.


If "a few lines of code" would solve the cryptocurrency scaling problem, how come no-one is coding that up into a super Bitcoin-killing altcoin? They'd be rich, wouldn't they?

[Shiroslullaby]

Even if you come out with a superior technology,
(which can be argued already)
people are slow to change when it comes to money. No one wants to lose their investment.
A fork is fucking scary. Look at all the chaos that happened with Ethereum. And that was an alt-coin with nowhere near the value of Bitcoin.
Most people are in this game to make money, not to advance the technology.

[amacar2]

The codes may be few but for its getting accepted by majority of bitcoin community is not easier. Whole community is divided between size should remain same 1mb and another who want block size to be increased to include as much transaction as possible.

[franky1]

Gentlemen, you are having a serious problem answering a simple question.
If "a few lines of code" would solve the cryptocurrency scaling problem, how come no-one is coding that up into a super Bitcoin-killing altcoin? They'd be rich, wouldn't they?

you know your team leaders altcoin monero already has it. but i guess you wanted someone else to advertise it so that you dont have to.
not clever because we all know you love monero and know about monero even if you pretend not to.

Even if you come out with a superior technology,
(which can be argued already)
people are slow to change when it comes to money. No one wants to lose their investment.
A fork is fucking scary. Look at all the chaos that happened with Ethereum. And that was an alt-coin with nowhere near the value of Bitcoin.
Most people are in this game to make money, not to advance the technology.

a INTENTIONAL and CONTROVERSIAL fork is scary? remember Ethereum was not a consensus fork it was a intentional split using --oppose-dao-fork to separate the chains PERMANENTLY

dont try bringing ethereums intentional split. into a debate about consensual upgrades.

[FruitsBasket]

If we go to 8 mb blocks, wouldn't the size of the blockchain .dat file increase with 400%?
That would mean over 200gb for downloading the blockchain, which is prety asburd. Then more people will use online wallets that are less secure.

[franky1]

If we go to 8 mb blocks, wouldn't the size of the blockchain .dat file increase with 400%?
That would mean over 200gb for downloading the blockchain, which is prety asburd. Then more people will use online wallets that are less secure.

this is why last year the community agreed that 2mb was an acceptable amount everyone could agree with.
even core think its ok to have 4mb now.. very funny i found that. but they dont want to have the extra 3mb for proper capacity. but to be abused by funky signatures, payment codes and other non traditional features.

but here is the thing

2mb, 4mb, 8mb.
the blockchain is not going to bloat to those settings the day the setting is active.
just like after the 500k db bug was sorted in 2013, blocks didnt instantly jump to 1mb completely filled blocks the next day.

these limits are not about "dont process a block unless its full".. to cause instant bloat. but instead "here is some extra space to allow slow natural growth without being crushed against a wall"

in short the rule is a BUFFER to allow growth unhindered for a while, not a minimal requirement that needs to be filled instantly

[mikewirth]

If we go to 8 mb blocks, wouldn't the size of the blockchain .dat file increase with 400%?
That would mean over 200gb for downloading the blockchain, which is prety asburd. Then more people will use online wallets that are less secure.

200GB is nothing.  Super fucking tiny.  The total size of the chain isn't at all important.  You only download it once.  You can buy 10 terabyte for very cheap.  So, 200GB is laughably small.

The real issue is passing 8MB around to all the nodes every ten minutes.  Some effects occur there.  No big deal.  Internet is freaking fast and getting freaking faster.  Netflix bandwidth load is >>>>>>> than bitcoin with 8MB. 

If we want people to be able to run a node behind a 1200 baud modem, then 8MB is problematic.  If we abandon those having 1200 baud and less, then the only reason to keep 1MB is to drive need for Blockstream's bullshit solutions. 

8MB blocks are very lightweight for nearly all modern systems. 

[FruitsBasket]

If we go to 8 mb blocks, wouldn't the size of the blockchain .dat file increase with 400%?
That would mean over 200gb for downloading the blockchain, which is prety asburd. Then more people will use online wallets that are less secure.

this is why last year the community agreed that 2mb was an acceptable amount everyone could agree with.
even core think its ok to have 4mb now.. very funny i found that. but they dont want to have the extra 3mb for proper capacity. but to be abused by funky signatures, payment codes and other non traditional features.

but here is the thing

2mb, 4mb, 8mb.
the blockchain is not going to bloat to those settings the day the setting is active.
just like after the 500k db bug was sorted in 2013, blocks didnt instantly jump to 1mb completely filled blocks the next day.

these limits are not about "dont process a block unless its full".. to cause instant bloat. but instead "here is some extra space to allow slow natural growth without being crushed against a wall"

in short the rule is a BUFFER to allow growth unhindered for a while, not a minimal requirement that needs to be filled instantly

Do you mean that the bitcoin blockchain is coded so the transactions will first gather up to a big total and than will be confirmed instead of one by one? So basically it is meant to be non instant confirmation?