1MB block size forever is just silly

[Carlton Banks]

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.  

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

[1715119646]

1715119646

[1715119646]

1715119646

[1715119646]

1715119646

[DooMAD]

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 than doing so on-chain.

It's faster and cheaper for repeated payments to and from the same person, sure, but that's not relevant to every transaction.  And when someone wants to settle on-chain to send those coins to someone else not using lightning, you'll still have to wait for a block when you close the payment channel and settle before you can spend those coins elsewhere.    

I also wouldn't mind some clarification regarding which party pays the miner fee when the balance is settled on-chain.  I don't see people discussing that in great detail.  The whitepaper states that:

By having knowledge of who broadcast a transaction and the ability to ascribe blame, a third party service can be used to hold fees in a 2-of-3 multisig escrow. If one wishes to broadcast the transaction chain instead of agreeing to do a Funding Close or replacement with a new Commitment Transaction, one would communicate with the third party and broadcast the chain to the blockchain.

If the fees are held in advance, how is one supposed to know what the appropriate fee will actually be by the time the channel is closed?  

[Lauda]

It's faster and cheaper for repeated payments to and from the same person, sure, but that's not relevant to every transaction.  

If decentralized routing is to be implemented as planned, the part "to the same person" becomes incorrect. All transactions on LN would be cheaper and faster. However, I'm not currently informed on the status of decentralized routing.

I also wouldn't mind some clarification regarding which party pays the miner fee when the balance is settled on-chain.  I don't see people discussing that in great detail.

Since when is this a LN thread? If we are going in-depth about LN, then we are going far away from the subject. I also do not have an answer for your question, although I could ask for it. Please do not listen to the pseudo-science post that is coming from some of the trolls. They are probably lurking around.

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Quite ironic, isn't it?

[Carlton Banks]

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Quite ironic, isn't it?

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

[franky1]

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Quite ironic, isn't it?

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

so
satoshi qt the original tribe.. then in 2013 another tribe within the pre-existing tribe starts, call it core.. which then tribals off again in 2014 as blockstream.. with 'white chief poking-bear' as tribal leader
then label the dissenters (those that are not core /blockstream but were old qt) as the invaders is immoral.

i think CB doesnt understand the word ironic, otherwise he would realise he is defending the immoral tribe he tries to describe.

why is it blockstream defenders play the victim card by doing the exact thing they point at others. especially when its obvious that al they care about is tribal leaders and not the whole bitcoin community

[franky1]

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.

CB yet again falsely suggesting non-core want to fork

last month it was
"no its dangerous they should not fork" - they never were going to anyway
now this month
"hurry up and fo a fork" - they never were going to anyway.

please learn consensus CB.

[Gimpeline]

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Quite ironic, isn't it?

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

so
satoshi qt the original tribe.. then in 2013 another tribe within the pre-existing tribe starts, call it core.. which then tribals off again in 2014 as blockstream.. with 'white chief poking-bear' as tribal leader
then label the dissenters (those that are not old qt) as the invaders is immoral.

i think CB doesnt understand the word ironic, otherwise he would realise he is defending the immoral tribe he tries to describe.

why is it blockstream defenders play the victim card by doing the exact thing they point at others. especially when its obvious that al they care about is tribal leaders and not the whole bitcoin community

We get it
You think Blockstream is New world order and all that stuff
Let's get back to topic, shall we?

[franky1]

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.

first please learn the difference between consensus and bilateral splits.

then you will realise soft or hard both have best case consensus and both have worst case bilateral.

when mentioning hard. in simple terms is NODES first then pools follow
when mentioning soft. in simple terms POOLS first then NODES follow(if they choose to want to become fullnodes again)

soft gives pools too much power.
hard does not give pools too much power.

please learn the basics. it doesnt require knowledge of C++ to learn these basic concepts and terms. which makes things easier for you.
it has been months since i first asked you and your buddy to learn the basics which should have taken 20-30 minutes to grasp.

why are you not bothered to learn about bitcoin?

[Lauda]

first please learn the difference between consensus and bilateral splits.

That has no relevance to my post. You are either a very bad troll or you've become delusional.

Let's get back to topic, shall we?

Pretty impossible with people like mr. 'franky1', as you can see above.

[digaran]

If I'm wrong please correct me, centralized bitcoin means majority of hashrate owners nodes runners always decide what to do.
Now they are doing as they wish and they care for the success of bitcoin but they also want more power and more profit.
They are heavily invested and wont back down and know that every one using bitcoin is either invested like themselves to avoid risking large amounts over higher fees or are just average users with no impact on economy if stayed or left.

I want to point out something, when US and RU see they are somewhat equal in military power, what they do? they simply try backstabbing each other by soft wars, sanctions, using veto etc.

In this community is exactly the same, as there are Core(US)- BU(RU)- and others are like China and other countries, even though they share similar interests(in our case they all want to have more power over blockchain and support bitcoin but non of them is willing to compromise for the sake of the bitcoin's future.) 

[franky1]

first please learn the difference between consensus and bilateral splits.

That has no relevance to my post. You are either a very bad troll or you've become delusional.

Let's get back to topic, shall we?

Pretty impossible with people like mr. 'franky1', as you can see above.

this topic is about bitcoin blocksize growth.. which is about consensus... you can meander your posts into being about personal attacks all you like.
you can fake it all you like that your the victim,
but atleast spend 30 minutes learning about bitcoin.
learn consensus vs bilateral

[IadixDev]

who wants to keep blocksize at 1mb? I was under the impression bitcoin was meant to scale.

Increasing block size wont scale anything. You get scaling when two processes can work in the same time without waiting on the other.

With blockchain it would mean two or more blocks could be mined in the same time without waiting or depending on each other.

Increasing block size or decreasing block time increases throughtput but doesn't increase scaling.

 The only one valid next block concept prevent true scaling , as all miners/stakers need to synch on the next block, and cant "advance" The blockchain each on their side.

To have true scaling it would require to distribute tx across miners for that they can each mine a different block in the same time. But with current blockchain principle that cannot happen as only one of the two block would get accepted.

Having a double chain system would allow cheap scaling.

To me the only thing that truly prevent mass scaling is the competition for block reward. Without this, many secure scaled system can be thought of.

The logic of coin emission control via block reward make it difficult to scale easily, as the total coin supply need to be controlled on the whole network, if a consistent emission curve is to be maintained.

I guess when cap is reached and emission curve flaten, scaling become easier.

[franky1]

who wants to keep blocksize at 1mb? I was under the impression bitcoin was meant to scale.

Increasing block size wont scale anything. You get scaling when two processes can work in the same time without waiting on the other.

With blockchain it would mean two or more blocks could be mined in the same time without waiting or depending on each other.

Increasing block size or decreasing block time increases throughtput but doesn't increase scaling.

 The only one valid next block concept prevent true scaling , as all miners/stakers need to synch on the next block, and cant "advance" The blockchain each on their side.

learn consensus
there would be only one chain. and NODES decide the rules... not pools, not devs.

one chain that the limits change when NODES signal they can cope (meaning no 'datacentre by midnight/gigabyte by midnight' doomsdays)
then pools secondarily start making blocks to the size the node consensus agrees to.

anything that the nodes dont consent to because devs have bypassed consensus would get orphaned.
less consent
(lower consent=more orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)
(higher consent=less orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)

[Gimpeline]

who wants to keep blocksize at 1mb? I was under the impression bitcoin was meant to scale.

Increasing block size wont scale anything. You get scaling when two processes can work in the same time without waiting on the other.

With blockchain it would mean two or more blocks could be mined in the same time without waiting or depending on each other.

Increasing block size or decreasing block time increases throughtput but doesn't increase scaling.

 The only one valid next block concept prevent true scaling , as all miners/stakers need to synch on the next block, and cant "advance" The blockchain each on their side.

learn consensus
there would be only one chain. and NODES decide the rules... not pools, not devs.

one chain that the limits change when NODES signal they can cope (meaning no 'datacentre by midnight/gigabyte by midnight' doomsdays)
then pools secondarily start making blocks to the size the node consensus agrees to.

And since only 5% of the nodes and a minority of the miners support BU, core should win?

[franky1]

And since only 5% of the nodes and a minority of the miners support BU, core should win?

neither side wins..
rules stay the same until consensus is met.

learn consensus

[DooMAD]

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Quite ironic, isn't it?

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

Firstly, you can voice whatever opposition you like if you actually have something more than personal attacks to offer.  If you think you're capable of that.  Play nice and you might find others start to do the same.

Secondly, it's not just you pushing the tribalism mindset, it's the vehemently anti-blockstream crowd too.  Both "sides" are as bad as each other.  But obviously I must be one of "them", right?  Because everyone who disagrees you absolutely has to be a BU fanatic who wants to fork Bitcoin into oblivion.  And from the perspective of the anti-blockstream fanatics, anyone who disagrees with them is equally untrustworthy and wants to control Bitcoin.  Somehow both sides genuinely believe the other to be evil, when in reality it's just people being belligerent and uncompromising.  Both tribes need to stop sniping and start discussing things reasonably.  Step one: stop telling people to fork off if you disagree with them.

It's faster and cheaper for repeated payments to and from the same person, sure, but that's not relevant to every transaction.  

If decentralized routing is to be implemented as planned, the part "to the same person" becomes incorrect. All transactions on LN would be cheaper and faster. However, I'm not currently informed on the status of decentralized routing.

I also wouldn't mind some clarification regarding which party pays the miner fee when the balance is settled on-chain.  I don't see people discussing that in great detail.

Since when is this a LN thread? If we are going in-depth about LN, then we are going far away from the subject. I also do not have an answer for your question, although I could ask for it.

I think it would help assuage concerns if we all had a greater understanding of what it is that's actually being proposed.  It seems like people arguing both for and against it can't explain it very well beyond the basic concept.  More often than not, the argument is presented that we should simply trust developers to get on with it, but that only flares tensions and results in the two groups sniping at each other with insults again.  There's no way I'm locking my funds into a multisig address until I know every conceivable outcome and I expect the same applies to everyone.  But if you'd prefer that all the LN stuff go in a new thread, we can do that.  This one is swiftly heading beyond redemption anyway, heh.

[Gimpeline]

And since only 5% of the nodes and a minority of the miners support BU, core should win?

neither side wins..
rules stay the same until consensus is met.

learn consensus

Learn logic

[kiklo]

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.

LOL,  

You think they are going to tell you it will have the ability to do fractional reserves.
It is an offchain representation , there is nothing stopping them from adding an update ,that allows fractional reserves.

It is just history repeating itself, learn from it or be enslaved by it, readers choice.
 
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

 

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did,
I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

by Henry Ford


Updated for LN

It is well enough that people of the world do not understand that Lightening Network will usher in fractional reserve banking into the Crypto-Currencies system, for if they did,
I believe the Lightening Network concept would be dead before tomorrow morning.

by Kiklo

[kiklo]

And since only 5% of the nodes and a minority of the miners support BU, core should win?

neither side wins..
rules stay the same until consensus is met.

learn consensus

Learn logic

I only speak 2 language , English & Logic.

Sorry, Franky1 is correct in his viewpoint and you are incorrect in yours.  

Logically Speaking.   

 

[DooMAD]

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.

LOL,  

You think they are going to tell you it will have the ability to do fractional reserves.
It is an offchain representation , there is nothing stopping them from adding an update ,that allows fractional reserves.

Whether "they" tell us or not, it will be apparent from the code, which people will look at before they run it.  People will see that you can't add to the balance once it has been locked.  The total can't be changed.  You aren't handing your coins to the custody of a third party where they can alter the balance.  And no, someone can't just "add an update that allows fractional reserves", because the code that governs the network is set in the client and users wouldn't update their client if the new code allowed fractional reserve.  Enough with the conspiracy theories.  It's clear from your posts that you haven't read a single thing about it.  You're only proving my point that the anti-blockstream hardliners are no better than anti-blocksize-adjustment hardliners.