What are you all - Sheep?

[karawantbtc]

This is one  big virtual pissing contest. There needs to be a better way to make these decisions. Way too many people involved. This is a case where a little centralization might be better.

[Yutikas_11920]

The guys you mentioned are putting hard work and dedication into making bitcoin better and make it scale in a viable way that doesn't centralize nodes, unlike Roger Ver and the rest of idiots that don't even know how to code and act as if they know shit about how bitcoin works beyond shitposting on internet forums.

Yup, many of those who want to make a bitcoin became better, but unfortunately there are some people who give it a view and incorrect criticism or jealous over their hard work that has been done by some people who want to see the bitcoin grow into a better and more feasible to use by everyone. Chances are those who can not work well in the bitcoin, so these plans of hate

[RawDog]

This is one  big virtual pissing contest. There needs to be a better way to make these decisions. Way too many people involved. This is a case where a little centralization might be better.

Bitcoin is fully centralized.  Whatever GMax says - goes.  Until Chinese miners grow balls, highly unlikely, the blockchain belongs to Blockstream.

[luthermanhole]

Lol wtf are we supposed to do mate

[Wind_FURY]

Why does everyone just stand around doing nothing while nullc / Blockstream / GMax takes over Bitcoin?

You are all sheep too. Did it not occur to you that the Bitcoin Unlimited people want to fork away Bitcoin from the core developers? Do they have coders as good as the ones working on Core? Stop the FUD and quit the politics. All roads point to bigger blocks anyway, with or without Segwit. But give it time.

[RawDog]

Did it not occur to you that the Bitcoin Unlimited people want to fork away Bitcoin from the core developers?

This is precisely what should happen - and what probably will happen as soon as a few more Chinese miners stop sucking GMax's dick and grow some balls of their own.

[QuestionAuthority]

Do you know how much of their lives these guys have devoted to Bitcoin? Andresen and Maxwell have lived and breathed Bitcoin from the very beginning. So they've figured out a way to massively profit from Bitcoin. They earned it.  I bet Maxwell has spent more time moderating Bitcoins IRC channel than all of you combined have spent on this forum.

[Sir Alpha_goy]

So I talk about a factual day (Bitcoin Pizza Day) and the thread gets scrubbed almost instantly and the op can call everyone a sheep and it stays?

Welcome to the Bitcoin state.

Follow the status quo.

No wonder you guys are divided.

 

Read some spam: http://lunaticoutpost.com/thread-713227.html

[franky1]

Why does everyone just stand around doing nothing while nullc / Blockstream / GMax takes over Bitcoin?

Did people say this when Gavin was in control and the Lead developer? People want their bread buttered on both sides. They complain that Bitcoin cannot scale to accommodate for mainstream adoption, and when someone develop something to address that, then they still complain about them.

SegWit and LN is probably not the best option, but it is better than nothing. Increasing the Block size to help with the scaling problem, will only increase the possibility that we will have a spam fest and more attacks on Bitcoin.

So what is your solution to the problem?

so segwits 'fee discount' is not going to entice a spammer by making cheaper bloated tx's more often.
and do you think someone maliciously wanting to spam will use LN?? think about it

as for the capacity boost.
the 1.8x of (2500 average tx) or 2.1x(2150 slightly bloated realistic more multisig tx) both equal ~4500tx IF 100% of people used segwit
same argument is
IF 100% of people done lean 1in 1out traditional transactions(not segwit) we would get ~5200tx (the good old 7txps promise)

[Xester]

We cannot do something about it because as the matter of fact we dont have the money, resources and facilities including the technology to do something about it. Anyway since its out of our control we dont need to think about it, instead lets just enjoy our bitcoins, our earnings , our investments. For me Im contented with what is bitcoin now, more importantly I am earning from bitcoins, thats the thing that matters.

[Wind_FURY]

Did it not occur to you that the Bitcoin Unlimited people want to fork away Bitcoin from the core developers?

This is precisely what should happen - and what probably will happen as soon as a few more Chinese miners stop sucking GMax's dick and grow some balls of their own.

I ask this from a neutral standpoint. Then why is there a lot of hate directed towards the Core developers? They will keep developing and try to push Bitcoin forward in a way they think is best. But it is the miners who have the final word. Why won't the developers of Bitcoin Unlimited start campaigning for their cause instead of spreading FUD?

[Kakmakr]

Why does everyone just stand around doing nothing while nullc / Blockstream / GMax takes over Bitcoin?

Did people say this when Gavin was in control and the Lead developer? People want their bread buttered on both sides. They complain that Bitcoin cannot scale to accommodate for mainstream adoption, and when someone develop something to address that, then they still complain about them.

SegWit and LN is probably not the best option, but it is better than nothing. Increasing the Block size to help with the scaling problem, will only increase the possibility that we will have a spam fest and more attacks on Bitcoin.

So what is your solution to the problem?

LOL,

The solution is a Hard Fork either with
1. Larger Block Sizes
or
2. Faster BlockSpeeds

Either one or both would increase transactions capacity, but both are irrelevant as are the BTC Devs, none of them can do anything unless the Chinese Mining Pools that control over 51% of the hash agree to it. Which is why you see these non-solutions being offered. There is nothing they can really do without the Chinese stamp of approval.  


 

FYI:
https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size
BTC transactions are overloaded at the time of this post , with more than 2 hours going by without even 1 confirmation.
LTC is working with transactions to spare, Chinese control it too.   

Increase the block size to what? That will only cause more problems with a new attack vector. You cannot increase the block size to infinity to accommodate for scaling to the level where we need Bitcoin to be to be ready for mainstream adoption. You need some solution where you still maintain the high level of security that Bitcoin offer now, and where it can scale to these levels.

Do not be fooled by the current congestion, most of it is spam to simulate a crisis. ^smile^

[Killerpotleaf]

Increase the block size to what? That will only cause more problems with a new attack vector. You cannot increase the block size to infinity to accommodate for scaling to the level where we need Bitcoin to be to be ready for mainstream adoption. You need some solution where you still maintain the high level of security that Bitcoin offer now, and where it can scale to these levels.

Do not be fooled by the current congestion, most of it is spam to simulate a crisis. ^smile^

spam that is paying 10cents for 256 bytes is good food for the bitcoin monster.... keep it coming.
how about we let the nodes figure out what is an appropriate block size, they are actually impacted by block size, they should choose it.

[kiklo]

Increase the block size to what? That will only cause more problems with a new attack vector. You cannot increase the block size to infinity to accommodate for scaling to the level where we need Bitcoin to be to be ready for mainstream adoption. You need some solution where you still maintain the high level of security that Bitcoin offer now, and where it can scale to these levels.

Do not be fooled by the current congestion, most of it is spam to simulate a crisis. ^smile^

Pick one, 2MB , 3MB , 4MB, 5 MB, 6MB , 7MB, 8 MB
2mb doubles transaction capacity
3mb triples transaction capacity
and so on.

Ok so what is this magic new attack vector , Reference Link Please .

Also if your attack vector is true, just stay under the MB size that makes it possible,

or just say the hell with the blocksize and lower the blockspeed , 

Although I do remember someone saying 8MB would work without an issue.

Don't forget the reference link to your scary new attack vector no one has heard of.

 

[AGD]

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/441/

Re: Flood attack 0.00000001 BC
Bitcointalk
2010-08-05 16:03:21 UTC - Original Post
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.  0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion.  Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.

That brings up the question: if there was a minimum 0.01 fee for each transaction, should we automatically add the fee if it's just the minimum 0.01?  It would be awfully annoying to ask each time.  If you have 50.00 and send 10.00, the recipient would get 10.00 and you'd have 39.99 left.  I think it should just add it automatically.  It's trivial compared to the fees many other types of services add automatically.

[kiklo]

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/441/

Re: Flood attack 0.00000001 BC
Bitcointalk
2010-08-05 16:03:21 UTC - Original Post
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.  0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion.  Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.

That brings up the question: if there was a minimum 0.01 fee for each transaction, should we automatically add the fee if it's just the minimum 0.01?  It would be awfully annoying to ask each time.  If you have 50.00 and send 10.00, the recipient would get 10.00 and you'd have 39.99 left.  I think it should just add it automatically.  It's trivial compared to the fees many other types of services add automatically.

Is this the magic attack vector or are you just having a brain fart?

 

FYI:
Any IP address can be DoS attacked , no matter the blocksize, makes little difference.

FYI2:
BTC costs too much and has already lost the micropayments market.

[kiklo]

Chinese have over 51% of the BTC hash rate

http://bravenewcoin.com/news/bitcoins-new-block-size-limit-solidifying-at-8-megabytes/

want up to an 8 MB block size

"After undergoing deep consideration and discussion, the five pools agree that while the block size does need to be increased, a compromise should be made to increase the network max block size to 8 megabytes. … We believe that this is a realistic short term adjustment that remains fair to all miners and node operators worldwide."

They just don't want one higher than 8MB.

1. "Chinese Internet bandwidth infrastructure is not built out to the same level as that of other countries."
2. "Chinese outbound Internet bandwidth is restricted, which causes increased latency in connections to Europe and the United States."
3. "Not all Chinese mining pools are ready for the jump to 20 MB blocks. Because of this, they fear that an increase to the large size could lead to a high rate of orphaned blocks."

*Side note ,
if the Chinese miners decide to just take over and replace Bitcoin core dev team with their own Dev Team, not much could stop them.
Perks to having over 51%.  

 

[AGD]

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/441/

Re: Flood attack 0.00000001 BC
Bitcointalk
2010-08-05 16:03:21 UTC - Original Post
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.  0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion.  Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.

That brings up the question: if there was a minimum 0.01 fee for each transaction, should we automatically add the fee if it's just the minimum 0.01?  It would be awfully annoying to ask each time.  If you have 50.00 and send 10.00, the recipient would get 10.00 and you'd have 39.99 left.  I think it should just add it automatically.  It's trivial compared to the fees many other types of services add automatically.

Is this the magic attack vector or are you just having a brain fart?

 

Did you ask me for a magic attack vector? Did I quote your posting to signalize my will to answer your "brain farts"? I guess the answer to both is: No.

SegWit seems to be the developers answer to the "flood attack" Satoshi was talking about. If there was no spamming, we had no blocksize discussion at all.

I also agree with Satoshi about to keep Bitcoin as small as possible.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999

Re: Wikileaks contact info?
December 05, 2010, 09:08:08 AM
   
Reply with quote  #148
Quote from: RHorning on December 04, 2010, 10:17:44 PM
Basically, bring it on.  Let's encourage Wikileaks to use Bitcoins and I'm willing to face any risk or fallout from that act.
No, don't "bring it on".

The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way.

I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy.  You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage.

Just one of the many example of the current state of the "heat" Satoshi was talking about:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-19/ecb-wants-curb-bitcoin-use-over-fears-it-may-lose-control-over-money-supply

However, overnight in a surprising reminder how the European central bank feels about bitcoin and other virtual money, the ECB urged EU lawmakers to tighten proposed new rules on digital currencies such as bitcoin, fearing they might one day weaken its own control over money supply in the euro zone.

My opinion is, that all this discussion about the need to bring Bitcoin to the masses is bullshit. The answer to this spam should be higher fees instead of a fork. I never had a problem with a Bitcoin transaction, because I always paid the approriate fee for it.
If spammers pay their fee, it's ok with me. (for the rhyme)

Now, if there is a consensus about a fork (like Satoshi said "WE can change it later"), then it will happen, no matter how long the losers will keep whining about it.

[kiklo]

Did you ask me for a magic attack vector? Did I quote your posting to signalize my will to answer your "brain farts"? I guess the answer to both is: No.

SegWit seems to be the developers answer to the "flood attack" Satoshi was talking about. If there was no spamming, we had no blocksize discussion at all.

I also agree with Satoshi about to keep Bitcoin as small as possible.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999

Now, if there is a consensus about a fork (like Satoshi said "WE can change it later"), then it will happen, no matter how long the losers will keep whining about it.

Hmm,
you are a hard one to understand, from your original post did not know what you were talking about.

Problem is there are transaction capacity problems, no matter real growth or malevolent intent,  the transaction lag is very real to the users waiting for coins.

Satoshi has not seem fit to grace any of us with his presence , Chinese Miners have over 51% it will be their call in the long run.
The rest of us merely spectators.


 

[r0ach]

Altering block size does nothing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1700073.0