1MB block size forever is just silly

[Carlton Banks]

Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do.


Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

[1715255729]

1715255729

[1715255729]

1715255729

[1715255729]

1715255729

[1715255729]

1715255729

[1715255729]

1715255729

[franky1]

Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do.


Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
if you need someone else to sign a transaction.. say hello to 'permission'
also
if you need a hopper to agree to be part of a payment.. say hello to 'permission'
meaning its no longer permissionless.

lastly due to the costs of 'hops' vs 'hubs' it will naturally turn into people saving funds by using hubs.

oh and CB, please learn CLTV maturity (resembles 3-5 business day delay for end user experience)
oh and CB, please learn CSV revoke (resembles chargebacks for end user experience)

[isoneguy]

what about a variable blocksize?

[Lauda]

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
-snip-

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

what about a variable blocksize?

There isn't a good proposal yet that:
1) Doesn't give the miners too much power.
2) Or which is very hard to game.
AFAIK it is stated somewhere that the general consensus long term is a variable block size, but that requires a lot more research and testing.

[isoneguy]

AFAIK it is stated somewhere that the general consensus long term is a variable block size, but that requires a lot more research and testing.

I think we'd also have to start slipping nodes a few satoshi's from transaction fees if something is implemented that makes the chain excessively large.

As always, research and testing should be done to the max.

[DooMAD]

Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do.


Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
if you need someone else to sign a transaction.. say hello to 'permission'

Plus we shouldn't forget about the "open" part.  It's hardly an open system if people are forced to transact off-chain because on-chain is constantly full and prohibitively expensive.  I'm confident that node operators will make their own judgement calls based on the level of service they're getting from the system as a whole.  Users won't support a system that doesn't support them.  If the user experience deteriorates to an unacceptable level, users will take action to remedy it.  Simple cause and effect.  The only thing yet to be determined is if we do SegWit then blocksize, or as a compromise do both at once just to end the current impasse.  It seems clear that both (and more) have to happen.

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
-snip-

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

Whether you deem it "nonsense" or not, it's still a dramatic shift in how the system operates.  I, for one, am glad that people are stopping to think about the ramifications.  It seems like almost everyone has a slightly different idea in their head about exactly how Lightning is going to operate in practice.  Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns.  I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...

what about a variable blocksize?

There isn't a good proposal yet that:
1) Doesn't give the miners too much power.
2) Or which is very hard to game.
AFAIK it is stated somewhere that the general consensus long term is a variable block size, but that requires a lot more research and testing.

Precisely.  Thinking ahead and considering the potential shortcomings about that proposal.  It's not "nonsense" to do that.  It's sensible.  So why are we shooting down people talking about Lightning in exactly the same way?

[digaran]

Sometimes I wonder what are these mining machines doing if not processing the transactions?
1-What are they really doing some sort of unneeded extra work?
2-Are they secretly trying to find the next prime?
3-Why there are some blocks with just a few TXs?
4-And why the protocol allows such small blocks?

[kiklo]

Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do.


Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

LN is banking, no way around it ,
BTC onchain network has real BTC on it,  on LN you are trading nothing but a representation value of BTC , as being off chain, BTC can not actually be on the LN Network.
IE:  Banking  


You stirred up a pet peeve of mine with that permissionless BS.

Here is why PoW is Permissioned, ( mined on a CPU or ASIC)
Facts
Permissions Required to generate a PoW Block if you Mine it
1.  Permission from the ASICS seller , to buy their ASIC.
2.  Permission from your local Govenment to allow the ASIC to be shipped to you.
3   Permission from the Electric Company to power your ASIC.
4.  Permission from the Mining pool you have to join because group mining is your only shot
5.  Permission from your ISP , so you have internet access to attempt to mine it.
6.  Permission from the original programmer thru the Open Source License granted so you can run the software.
If you pay someone else to mine it , You need their permission and acceptance of your currency.

Permissions Required if you just buy it. (Same for PoW & PoS)
1.  Permission from the Exchange
2.  Permission from the Seller

Free Faucet  (Same for PoW & PoS)
1.  Permission from the one running the faucet

Hopefully we can put that falsehood permissioned verses permissionless to rest , because nothing peeves me more that hearing the same lie more than once.
There are No Permissionless systems in crypto.

 

[Carlton Banks]

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
-snip-

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

Whether you deem it "nonsense" or not, it's still a dramatic shift in how the system operates.  I, for one, am glad that people are stopping to think about the ramifications.  It seems like almost everyone has a slightly different idea in their head about exactly how Lightning is going to operate in practice.  Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns.  I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...

... and what? If there's any chance they're not, you should find out for yourself. The idea that any credibility should be afforded to a consistent Bitcoin troll of 4 years+ is a joke, Franky has proven to be such a troll so, so many times. Every bit of his weirdo politics has ended up proven wrong, upon which he just moves onto the next scare tactic. Which makes your opinion a bit of a joke, doesn't it?

[d5000]

Blocksize is not a scaling solution on its own, but should still be part of the solution.  We need everything and the kitchen sink.  SegWit, Blocksize, Lightning, Atomic cross-chain transactions, sidechains/treechains, etc.  People generally understand that the blocksize is one of the more costly elements of the formula, but we still have to find a balance.  Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

This is one of the best short opinion posts I read about the blocksize debate and I fully agree. I would use LN, if it works the way it is described by its supportes - but only for very small, non-critical (regarding to privacy and security) transactions, the way like we today use prepaid and gift cards, and perhaps for the coffee in the bar the next block. But on-chain transactions should never be a privilege of "Bitcoin banks", "payment processors" and other large entities. So I want all - Segwit, LN and a conservative block size increase, because we will continue to see technical advancements that make a bigger blockchain feasible.

[DooMAD]

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
-snip-

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

Whether you deem it "nonsense" or not, it's still a dramatic shift in how the system operates.  I, for one, am glad that people are stopping to think about the ramifications.  It seems like almost everyone has a slightly different idea in their head about exactly how Lightning is going to operate in practice.  Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns.  I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...

... and what? If there's any chance they're not, you should find out for yourself. The idea that any credibility should be afforded to a consistent Bitcoin troll of 4 years+ is a joke, Franky has proven to be such a troll so, so many times. Every bit of his weirdo politics has ended up proven wrong, upon which he just moves onto the next scare tactic. Which makes your opinion a bit of a joke, doesn't it?

Whatever you say, Carlton.  Anything to set the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a troll and have nefarious motives.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it's no less disappointing each time you do it.  Less personal attacks and character assassinations, please.

LN is banking, no way around it ,
BTC onchain network has real BTC on it,  on LN you are trading nothing but a representation value of BTC , as being off chain, BTC can not actually be on the LN Network.
IE:  Banking  

Now, see, I wouldn't go to this extreme either.  It's not that black and white.  Plus, it is still real BTC, just lifted temporarily off-chain until settled again.  There is no fractional reserve in play, nor should there ever be.  LN has its place and it should be implemented, that's a reasonable standpoint, but at the same time, it's not a substitute for on-chain scaling and no one should be forced into using it.  They're all individual elements of an overall scaling solution.  Again, everything and the kitchen sink.  

[kiklo]

LN is banking, no way around it ,
BTC onchain network has real BTC on it,  on LN you are trading nothing but a representation value of BTC , as being off chain, BTC can not actually be on the LN Network.
IE:  Banking  

Now, see, I wouldn't go to this extreme either.  It's not that black and white.  Plus, it is still real BTC, just lifted temporarily off-chain until settled again.  There is no fractional reserve in play, nor should there ever be.  LN has its place and it should be implemented, that's a reasonable standpoint, but at the same time, it's not a substitute for on-chain scaling and no one should be forced into using it.  They're all individual elements of an overall scaling solution.  Again, everything and the kitchen sink.  

No it is not real BTC on LN,

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN (offchain) is a representation of that value.
(No Different that when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.  

   


FYI:  http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

In the past, savers looking to keep their coins and valuables in safekeeping depositories deposited gold and silver at goldsmiths, receiving in exchange a note for their deposit (see Bank of Amsterdam). These notes gained acceptance as a medium of exchange for commercial transactions and thus became an early form of circulating paper money. As the notes were used directly in trade, the goldsmiths observed that people would not usually redeem all their notes at the same time, and they saw the opportunity to invest their coin reserves in interest-bearing loans and bills. This generated income for the goldsmiths but left them with more notes on issue than reserves with which to pay them. A process was started that altered the role of the goldsmiths from passive guardians of bullion, charging fees for safe storage, to interest-paying and interest-earning banks. Thus fractional-reserve banking was born.

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
BTC        =  Gold

Just History repeating itself.  

[Carlton Banks]

Whatever you say, Carlton.  Anything to set the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a troll and have nefarious motives.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it's no less disappointing each time you do it.  Less personal attacks and character assassinations, please.

It's a fact, and both you, me and the rest of the honest forum members know it.

You're lying. You know Franky is not debating honestly, and that you do not debate honestly either. That's why you and the rest of your cronies will lose: your words will prove themselves to be false when the Bitcoin Unlimited train actually leaves the station. You will scurry away into the darkness, never to be seen again when BU implodes, of course, because your dishonesty will be proven.

So hurry the fuck up and get your fork over with, the constant droning of your lies is not worrying or irritating, it's just boring.

[kiklo]

Whatever you say, Carlton.  Anything to set the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a troll and have nefarious motives.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it's no less disappointing each time you do it.  Less personal attacks and character assassinations, please.

It's a fact, and both you, me and the rest of the honest forum members know it.

You're lying. You know Franky is not debating honestly, and that you do not debate honestly either. That's why you and the rest of your cronies will lose: your words will prove themselves to be false when the Bitcoin Unlimited train actually leaves the station. You will scurry away into the darkness, never to be seen again when BU implodes, of course, because your dishonesty will be proven.

So hurry the fuck up and get your fork over with, the constant droning of your lies is not worrying or irritating, it's just boring.

Somebody needs a nap, you seem a little cranky.  



 

[zimmah]

I don't really know where else to go from that..   1MB will seem like 1KB soon enough.  What do..

 

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.   
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

[DooMAD]

No it is not real BTC on LN,

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN is a representation of that value.
(No Different that when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.  

   

I can promise you that LN would be dead in the water if there was even a remote chance of fractional reserve or an increase in the total coin cap.  It's one of those red lines that consensus will never cross.  You won't be able to settle a total on the blockchain greater than that which was initially locked.  All coins can be traced back to their coinbase origin, while sums created through fraction reserve would not have such an origin to be traceable to.  Network rules wouldn't accept or validate a transaction where the output was greater than the input and the additional coins appeared from nowhere.  Miners and nodes will never accept those particular rules changing.

Whatever you say, Carlton.  Anything to set the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a troll and have nefarious motives.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it's no less disappointing each time you do it.  Less personal attacks and character assassinations, please.

It's a fact, and both you, me and the rest of the honest forum members know it.

You're lying. You know Franky is not debating honestly, and that you do not debate honestly either. That's why you and the rest of your cronies will lose: your words will prove themselves to be false when the Bitcoin Unlimited train actually leaves the station. You will scurry away into the darkness, never to be seen again when BU implodes, of course, because your dishonesty will be proven.

So hurry the fuck up and get your fork over with, the constant droning of your lies is not worrying or irritating, it's just boring.

Go be bored somewhere else, then.  All you have left is an endless barrage of insults and a tribalist mentality that causes unnecessary friction and polarisation.  Anyone who isn't with you is against you and there's no happy middle-ground or compromise.  I've already said we should implement SegWit and also have Lightning as an option where it's appropriate, but you still just want to attack everything and everyone if anyone even dares to utter the word 'blocksize'.  Triggered much?

And no, I'm not going to conveniently disappear in the event of a controversial hardfork, because I would much rather see a unified approach where the majority agree where the blocksize limit should be set and we all move forward together.  You're the proud bannerman of the fork-off brigade who takes great delight in the prospect of one tribal group crushing the other.  Admittedly there may have been periods where I was sick of your (and ice, brg, davout, hdbuck, etc's) hardliner crap and thought maybe it would be best if two chains went their separate ways, but I'd rather see unity.  I will continue to call for compromise and a consensual fork, not a bilateral split.  And even in the event of a split, I certainly won't be shorting any chains.  I'm afraid whatever happens you're stuck with me.  

[Lauda]

I think we'd also have to start slipping nodes a few satoshi's from transaction fees if something is implemented that makes the chain excessively large.

There is a very slim chance to gain consensus on something like that IMO.

Plus we shouldn't forget about the "open" part.  It's hardly an open system if people are forced to transact off-chain because on-chain is constantly full and prohibitively expensive.

Wrong. Once you are actually on LN, i.e. you have locked in funds, transacting is both faster and cheaper[/b] than doing so on-chain.

Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns.  I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...

Looks like you're uninformed about this troll. He does sometimes have some valid points, but that's it.

Precisely.  Thinking ahead and considering the potential shortcomings about that proposal.  It's not "nonsense" to do that.  It's sensible.  So why are we shooting down people talking about Lightning in exactly the same way?

Because trolls and FUDers post nonsense about it. You've seen an example above my previous post (franky) and below it (kiklo).

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.    
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

You must be joking. Nobody reasonable wants these shitcoins. Out of a 1000, maybe 2 are decent.

[isoneguy]

Maybe a few more are decent? Don't really have the patience to sift through all the crap ones though.

I think we'll eventually want to incentivize mining nodes or even have to when the blockchain becomes less weildly.

[Lauda]

I think we'll eventually want to incentivize mining nodes or even have to when the blockchain becomes less weildly.

Huh? Mining nodes are incentivized by the subsidy and the accompanying TX fees. I think you meant to say, non-mining nodes?

[isoneguy]

I think we'll eventually want to incentivize mining nodes or even have to when the blockchain becomes less weildly.

Huh? Mining nodes are incentivized by the subsidy and the accompanying TX fees. I think you meant to say, non-mining nodes?

Yes, thank you. It's late in the morning...My sentience fades.