WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact.
You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense..
You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!"
"Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!"
The _protocol_ needs no maximum on the block size. The miners, being the ones who are affected by the block size, can set it without your soviet. At whatever point makes sense from a market demand and supply perspective.
Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't.
You changed your mind.
You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for
no protocol-determined block limit. For such is exactly equivalent to a centrally-planned production quota. And production quotas -- to the extent that they are enforceable -- are invariably economically inefficient, ensuring crappy outcomes for most participants.
In case you had not noticed, miners have always been happy to mine blocks large enough such that average wait tx latencies were darned near universally next-block or so. That is, until blocks became persistently full, making such performance impossible.
At 1MB in size, blocks are so trivially small that miners' only consideration was in maximizing tx fees in the blocks they are building. Leading to blocks not being persistently full until the number of txs desired by the community became in excess of the block size limit. Obviously, such an issue can be solved by increasing the block size limit.
Of course, at some size (specific size thereof unknowable to the central planners), block size will be problematic. But
the market will solve this issue. At the point where block propagation increases due to size leads to a higher incidence of orphaning, that is where the equilibrium point for block size will be set. Again, assuming no centrally-planned max, and that sufficient txs are available to build such large blocks.
What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up.
and what would you do when groups spam the blocks to make them large and reduce the number of nodes?
Is anyone going to pull you up on this one? Look above, you said you advocate for larger blocks.
And now you advocate for a dynamic block, only after i mentioned dynamic block, which you never mentioned previously. If that is the case and it is dynamic blocks and not bigger blocks, then you also must support the current and smaller block size as it fits within your framework of a dynamic block. Therefore, your arguments about a smaller block size goes out the window.
The thing is, when mining a block it doesn't matter what size the block is, the cost to generate such blocks are the same.
Can you imagine a scenario, where there are 100,000 unconfirmed transaction, which you now have a dynamic blocksize, and a miner confirms all 100,000. what will happen for the next miner to find a block? what is going to be his reward? what will be his incentive to keep mining? the hopes he will find a block big enough, with enough fees to pay the electricity bills?
What will happen to fees? it will drop to nothing as there will be no competition to have your transaction validated.
Production Quota are economically inefficient? <-WTF? this just confirms to me, you are completely delusional..
I wish i had you as a boss, "Hey jbreher, how much products should i get out today? Up to you mate, do a little, do a lot, do what every you see fit. I'll leave it with you. no production quotas here mate!.
As much as we all want to support Bitcoin, bills still need to be paid, cost needs to paid. profit needs to be made!
BTW this has been discussed a while back in BIP106, dynamic block size with formulas to calculate next block size etc... but you will probably claim you already know about that...
But of course you won't agree, you will go off on a tangent and talk about "centrally planned" and "soviets" and god know what else.
Someone earlier mentioned talking to you is like talking to a wall... exactly know what they mean now...
I'll leave it with this one last point...
You talk about the market this, the market that, the market will, well the market has spoken mate! and You and BCH/BSV and what every other shitcoin you represent are the weakest link!
Good Bye!
Poll
