JarzikCoin code aka segwit2xcoin already collapsing

[pereira4]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

[1715346611]

1715346611

[1715346611]

1715346611

[1715346611]

1715346611

[1715346611]

1715346611

[1715346611]

1715346611

[mindrust]

He is trying to do 10 men's job by himself. Of course his code is going to fail. That's not about Garzik's coding abilities. It is physics and he is not superman.

On one side, we have a team of talented devs from core which is proven by time and on the other side, there is only one dev. They expect us to trust +40B$ company's future to one guy?

No thx, offer refused.

[25hashcoin]

Segwit is poison to bitcoin and needs to be avoided at all costs in any implementation. Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt with segwit to turn bitcoin into a banking settlement system. Every true bitcoiner should support Satoshis vision by supporting Bitcoin ABC http://www.bitcoinabc.org

[OmegaStarScream]

If they only started their SegWit2x plan a few months ago, they could've definitely test it properly and succeed eventually into activating it because they have the required hash power but they are not going anywhere with a buggy software.

[pereira4]

Segwit is poison to bitcoin and needs to be avoided at all costs in any implementation. Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt with segwit to turn bitcoin into a banking settlement system. Every true bitcoiner should support Satoshis vision by supporting Bitcoin ABC http://www.bitcoinabc.org

It's funny how everyone shilling their implementation claims to be "satoshi's vision".

"Support XT, it's satoshi's vision"

"Support Classic, it's satoshi's vision"

"Support Unlimited, it's satoshi's vision"

Give me a break. Satoshi didn't foresee a lot of things we are experiencing now so "satoshi's vision" (whatever that is) is irrelevant with 2017's data.

If they only started their SegWit2x plan a few months ago, they could've definitely test it properly and succeed eventually into activating it because they have the required hash power but they are not going anywhere with a buggy software.

A hardfork requires an entire year AT LEAST of preparation. Jeff Garzik is on crazy pills or is on Bitmain money.

[mindrust]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

[25hashcoin]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

[Minecache]

You guys are all dickheads. Instead of trying to resolve Bitcoins issues together you just want to sit back and moan and criticise others work. Look what you've done to Bitcoins price. Well done you. Here's a cookie. 

[ebliever]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

I wonder what the big-block crowd imagines is going to happen if they keep plowing forward. Do they really think keeping their code in some kind of safe kindergarten sandbox is the way to prepare it for deployment? That there are not hordes of drooling hackers waiting to tear into it and wreak havoc if it were imposed on Bitcoin?

I tend to envision the security situation with Bitcoin as being like the Battle of Helms Deep in the movie The Two Towers. Bitcoin has been under ferocious assault from hackers since it became worthwhile to target. If they aren't ready to cope with that then they have no business developing software and then expecting the rest of us to place our trust in it.

[joseafonso123az]

These things make the bitcoin value change. And they already start having issues in something that they want to implement. They should have done a vast test before just going out with problems still to be solved

[Argon2]

Garzik is probably the best and most "head on straight" Bitcoin developer. Being in charge of BitPay brings even further confidence. Private testnet is great too, they can work on critical issues without trolling and riff raff.

[Xavofat]

Every true bitcoiner should support Satoshis vision by supporting Bitcoin ABC http://www.bitcoinabc.org

Satoshi also opposed second implementations, such as those used by Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic.  Here's what he said:

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.

Satoshi believed and said a lot of different things.  It would be unreasonable to go appealing to satoshi's authority whenever you want to alter Bitcoin, because you'll probably find you're doing something else that he didn't like.

[ebliever]

Garzik is probably the best and most "head on straight" Bitcoin developer. Being in charge of BitPay brings even further confidence. Private testnet is great too, they can work on critical issues without trolling and riff raff.

Geez there is a lot of comedy from the shill accounts on this thread. 

[infofront]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

I wonder what the big-block crowd imagines is going to happen if they keep plowing forward. Do they really think keeping their code in some kind of safe kindergarten sandbox is the way to prepare it for deployment? That there are not hordes of drooling hackers waiting to tear into it and wreak havoc if it were imposed on Bitcoin?

I tend to envision the security situation with Bitcoin as being like the Battle of Helms Deep in the movie The Two Towers. Bitcoin has been under ferocious assault from hackers since it became worthwhile to target. If they aren't ready to cope with that then they have no business developing software and then expecting the rest of us to place our trust in it.

This.
They considered a few ASICs mining the testnet coin, and spiking the difficulty, to be a major "attack". If their coin ever goes live they'll see what a real attack is, when there's basically the hacker equivalent of full scale nuclear war being waged against them.

[Lauda]

Garzik is probably the best and most "head on straight" Bitcoin developer.

Absolute nonsense. On a ranking scale, he currently is near the bottom with all those people who left Bitcoin development.

Being in charge of BitPay brings even further confidence.

Absolutely irrelevant.

Private testnet is great too, they can work on critical issues without trolling and riff raff.

I am not sure if you're a spammer, shill, or just stupid.

This.
They considered a few ASICs mining the testnet coin, and spiking the difficulty, to be a major "attack". If their coin ever goes live they'll see what a real attack is, when there's basically the hacker equivalent of full scale nuclear war being waged against them.

Blaming an attacker for faulty code is the equivalent to saying that 'Water is wet'. They are highly incompetent and aren't even willing to admit to their mistakes.

[Kakmakr]

Hey, look at the upside to this. When the code fail, we will have ONE fall guy for this and not a group of developers pointing fingers at each other to try and shift the blame. On the other hand, he will shift the blame to the people who has to do the peer review and Core will once again get the blame for everything. < Like we have seen before with BugCoin >

The pressure of having a Billion Dollar experiment in your hands has already taken it's toll, when Gavin jumped ship and Core had to take his place. ^smile^ 

[soul-impact]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

Are you talking about the support of all of us? Look at the current market, it is going down and causing extremely serious consequences, and bitcoin is the cause of it. The bitcoin chaos is wrecking the entire market, I hate this.

[Pursuer]

You guys are all dickheads. Instead of trying to resolve Bitcoins issues together you just want to sit back and moan and criticise others work. Look what you've done to Bitcoins price. Well done you. Here's a cookie. 

this is not "criticizing" this is someone who doesn't even know what that particular issue was about and is overly happy because he thinks he has found an "issue" with it. and now (knowingly or unknowingly) is contributing to the drama by spreading even more FUD.

to be honest I have more respect for those supporting BU,... (despite disagreeing with them) than I have for OP. because at least they know what they are doing which is mainly a hostile takeover.

[The One]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

[The One]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

I wonder what the big-block crowd imagines is going to happen if they keep plowing forward. Do they really think keeping their code in some kind of safe kindergarten sandbox is the way to prepare it for deployment? That there are not hordes of drooling hackers waiting to tear into it and wreak havoc if it were imposed on Bitcoin?

I tend to envision the security situation with Bitcoin as being like the Battle of Helms Deep in the movie The Two Towers. Bitcoin has been under ferocious assault from hackers since it became worthwhile to target. If they aren't ready to cope with that then they have no business developing software and then expecting the rest of us to place our trust in it.

Does that mean at some point in the future, Satoshi, (Gandalf) will arrive on here to save the day?

[The One]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

Are you talking about the support of all of us? Look at the current market, it is going down and causing extremely serious consequences, and bitcoin is the cause of it. The bitcoin chaos is wrecking the entire market, I hate this.

I love it... i see opportunities to profit from this chaos. However, tread carefully.

[soul-impact]

These things make the bitcoin value change. And they already start having issues in something that they want to implement. They should have done a vast test before just going out with problems still to be solved

That's right, this is greatly affecting the value of bitcoin and the entire altcoins. They are moving in the same direction, and they go down too deep, causing many to lose a lot of money.

[hatshepsut93]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

This is what happens when people (miners) get way over their head because they are blinded by greed. Many people here are scared of hard forks, checking miners signalling every day, but in the end it's users and holders of Bitcoin who has the ultimate power, we decide what coin we want to use, what dev group to trust, and until someone presents a dev group more skilled than Core, there will be no successful hard forks.

These things make the bitcoin value change. And they already start having issues in something that they want to implement. They should have done a vast test before just going out with problems still to be solved

That's right, this is greatly affecting the value of bitcoin and the entire altcoins. They are moving in the same direction, and they go down too deep, causing many to lose a lot of money.

It's very speculative to tell what exactly was the reason for the recent dump, it could very easily be just a simple bubble bursting. People lose real money only if they have bought at the top, otherwise it's just an opportunity loss, and most people who bought just a few months ago are still in green.

[BillyBobZorton]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

The difference is, bitcoin is not just any other software, it's an unique software that can't afford rushing a hardfork in a couple of months, which is what Core would never do because they know the consequences. How much in denial can you be about the fact that Garzik is an idiot and so is everyone involved in the segwit2x mess? Time to to get real.

[Xavofat]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

You know, there's a giant difference from now and then - the difference being that they were contributing to open source code.

At this point, Bitcoin is so big that there are thousands of competent developers who would love to have their voices heard and contribute to fixing any bugs.  If you're trying to rush through buggy code with a closed-source testnet and do it in just a couple of months, that's pure incompetence.

This is billions of dollars worth of BTC they're dealing with, and they can't let a huge decentralised network act as it should.

[pereira4]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

This is what happens when you push a big blocker in the cliff of reasoning. "muh coretard". Sorry buddy, you look ridiculous defending the big block morons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Take some notes on why big blocks are fucking stupid.

[The One]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

The difference is, bitcoin is not just any other software, it's an unique software that can't afford rushing a hardfork in a couple of months, which is what Core would never do because they know the consequences. How much in denial can you be about the fact that Garzik is an idiot and so is everyone involved in the segwit2x mess? Time to to get real.

Still a software and still had bugs since its inception. I said, "Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development." As for the timescale and quality of any software, it is up to the users to decide.

I have never met him, i have never converse with him. I have no judgement to make about Garzik. I do not go around passing judgement about people i have never met or converse with. Neither do i go around insulting strangers for no reason online. I do not do cyber bulling. Just because i am more mature, wise and have good manners and respect for my fellow human beings; it doesn't give you the right to have a go at me. Try growing up.

[mindrust]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure.  

-brainwashed Coretard

This is what happens when you push a big blocker in the cliff of reasoning. "muh coretard". Sorry buddy, you look ridiculous defending the big block morons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Take some notes on why big blocks are fucking stupid.

They don't care about satoshi's vision or anything else. They are repeating what their master told them. I know none of those morons won't be reading this but in any case, if any sane person wonders what the hell satoshi's vision was, they can read it here:
https://medium.com/@giftedproducts/cryptocurrencies-with-tim-ferriss-nick-szabo-and-naval-ravikant-51a99d037e04

We could get into the whole block size issue because there is a parameter we shouldn’t but I probably will talk about it a little bit. There’s a there’s a technical security parameter called the block size how the general public glommed onto this I do not know. But there’s there’s an obsessive group of people who think of this as some kind of artificial barrier to more transactions per second on Bitcoin. Really it’s it’s job is it’s it’s a fence preventing people from overwhelming flooding the network with lots of transactions that the full nodes I talked about can’t handle that that transaction history keeps building and building.

-Nick Szabo, The most realistic satoshi candidate.

[The One]

The miners won't approve segwit because segwit = off-chain devaluation (fiat).

Wasn't it the Core developers who lowered the blocksize from 32MB down to 1MB to begin with? For three years they've been hoping that the miners would break under pressure and approve off-chain segwit.

You either have a bitcoin or you don't. No more fairy dust and empty promises.

No. Satoshi did as a temporary measure to prevent "spam."

[25hashcoin]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

This is what happens when you push a big blocker in the cliff of reasoning. "muh coretard". Sorry buddy, you look ridiculous defending the big block morons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Take some notes on why big blocks are fucking stupid.

You're 100% wrong about everything.

[pinkflower]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

[franky1]

so pereira4 is crying because garzic is running tests on btc1 on a separate testnet.

well there are thousands of devs, who can just run btc1 on a public testnet.
lol
it doesnt need everyone to sit on their hands and wait for garzic to test it on his own.. anyone can
so if you want to cry about someone privately testing something, go run the code and test it publicly

..
but anyway i mentioned it before in another FUD topic by pereira4. so here is a summary
using a separate testnet specifically for a new bip is not new, and not garzic setting a precedent

hint: SegNet

have a nice day

[iluvpie60]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

[The One]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here.

What is the problem with big blocks exactly. In terms of space on harddrives I don't see it. A 4 TB HDD is like 70 dollars on sale.

I did some quick math.

Assuming a block created every 10 minutes and is the max size, 1mb or 2mb or 3 mb or 4 mb.

10 years from now here is how much more GB is added to the total size of the blockchain


1mb blocks - 525.6 GB
2mb blocks - 1,051.2GB
3mb blocks - 1,576.8GB
4mb blocks - 2,102.4GB
10mb blocks - 5,256GB

Even with 10 mb blocks starting now and goign to 10 years out there WILL NOT BE A STORAGE ISSUE for the average person. Not at all! The average person can afford to buy a 6 TB or a little higher HDD for like 150 bucks or something, and by the time we are 10 years out a 30 TB drive will be like 100 bucks or cheaper.

Cost of internet? On average most internet companies per month charge like 60 to 100 a month and you get between 250 GB to 1,000 GB a month downloaded before they charge you an extra 10 bcks for another 100 GB.

So even under the 10MB block size on a monthly basis you are only downloading on your node 40 GB per 4 week period.

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mbp and  in terms of speed, so to download 10MB on an average of every 10 minutes your internet speed needs to be at the minimum be able to handle 133 kbps, yes, kilobits per second, so convert to KiloBytes per second by dividing by 8 and you get 16.5 KBPS, DIAL UP IS 56 KBPS. Helllloooooooo!!!!!

If you have 80mbps download you can do 600  10MB blocks in 10 minutes.


I honestly have no idea why anyone thinks big blocks are a problem, maybe if we got to 100 MB blocks and it happened in a few years, but that won't happen!

It is not a stupid question. Don't worry many of us have worked this out, similar to yours above and equally don't see the fuss.

There is an irrational fear that the number of full nodes will shrink due to the costs above and Bitcoin will be centralised.

I can download a 200mb mp4 file in 1 minute 30 seconds. 10mb in 20 second. (both averages) Internet is £30 per month and already paid for due to other uses. Running a full node does not add any extra cost at all.

[pereira4]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure.  

-brainwashed Coretard

This is what happens when you push a big blocker in the cliff of reasoning. "muh coretard". Sorry buddy, you look ridiculous defending the big block morons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ

Take some notes on why big blocks are fucking stupid.

You're 100% wrong about everything.

Wrong.

The miners won't approve segwit because segwit = off-chain devaluation (fiat).

Wasn't it the Core developers who lowered the blocksize from 32MB down to 1MB to begin with? For three years they've been hoping that the miners would break under pressure and approve off-chain segwit.

You either have a bitcoin or you don't. No more fairy dust and empty promises.

The miners don't give a fuck about anything that isn't profits and outperforming the competition, but above everything they want control. The 2MB hardfork is a way for Jihan to get Jihan-sponsored devs instead of Core which he can't control because everyone on Core is already rich and will not sold out their cryptopunk roots for more money.

Segwit has been insanely tested, drop the FUD. The real problem is the fucking hardfork so get your priorities straight. 2 bitcoins = bitcoin no longer a store of value.

so pereira4 is crying because garzic is running tests on btc1 on a separate testnet.

well there are thousands of devs, who can just run btc1 on a public testnet.
lol
it doesnt need everyone to sit on their hands and wait for garzic to test it on his own.. anyone can
so if you want to cry about someone privately testing something, go run the code and test it publicly

..
but anyway i mentioned it before in another FUD topic by pereira4. so here is a summary
using a separate testnet specifically for a new bip is not new, and not garzic setting a precedent

hint: SegNet

have a nice day

You keep missing the point: Garzik is setting a precedent by wanting to hardfork with unsafe code and unsafe time.

[franky1]

You keep missing the point: Garzik is setting a precedent by wanting to hardfork with unsafe code and unsafe time.

and core wanted a november code activated by christmas without giving a damn about usernodes symbiotic relationship validating said blocks..

[RealBitcoin]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

I just love the drama, seriously both sides are could be wrong.....

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

Keep ignoring the 2nd and 3rd world, but then don't cry when they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

[LuanX3]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

I just love the drama, seriously both sides are could be wrong.....

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

Keep ignoring the 2nd and 3rd world, but then don't cry when they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

There is a 2nd world? I didn't know that.

Anyway, I think the fees has drastically went down already since a few weeks ago. I didn't have to pay 0.001btc for a fee anymore if there is one output and one input. But maybe you're getting a $50 (or maybe 0.002btc roughly in today's prices), because you had so much inputs and/or outputs. Minimize those and you'll be alright.

[BrewMaster]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

I just love the drama, seriously both sides are could be wrong.....

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

Keep ignoring the 2nd and 3rd world, but then don't cry when they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

There is a 2nd world? I didn't know that.

Anyway, I think the fees has drastically went down already since a few weeks ago. I didn't have to pay 0.001btc for a fee anymore if there is one output and one input. But maybe you're getting a $50 (or maybe 0.002btc roughly in today's prices), because you had so much inputs and/or outputs. Minimize those and you'll be alright.

no, there is no maybe. he is simply lying. check out his post history and you can see what i mean. he has been attacking bitcoin with this stupid reason for a while now.
we all know about the ongoing spam attack and the high fees but people like him are only using it to spread FUD and attack bitcoin for their personal gains.

i actually sent some bitcoin today with 0.00002000BTC = 0.046$ fee to see what happens and bump the fee using RBF if needs be and before i knew it the tx was confirmed in less than a minute.

[gentlemand]

I just love the drama, seriously both sides are could be wrong.....

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

Keep ignoring the 2nd and 3rd world, but then don't cry when they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

And who in their right mind would switch to ETH? Great for pumpage and not much else. If Bitcoin is fucked then I'll be done with crypto.

[RealBitcoin]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

I just love the drama, seriously both sides are could be wrong.....

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

Keep ignoring the 2nd and 3rd world, but then don't cry when they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

There is a 2nd world? I didn't know that.

Anyway, I think the fees has drastically went down already since a few weeks ago. I didn't have to pay 0.001btc for a fee anymore if there is one output and one input. But maybe you're getting a $50 (or maybe 0.002btc roughly in today's prices), because you had so much inputs and/or outputs. Minimize those and you'll be alright.

Yes it's the elitist western arrogancy that partitioned the world into 3 parts: 1st world is the west, 2nd world is the former communist countries + south america and the 3rd wold is africa + middle east. You don't have to guess how much the wages are anywhere else except the western world, they are horrible.

You have to be very stupid if you think I am that crazy to pay 50$ for a transaction when the weekly wages here are lower than this.

I just dont use Bitcoin anymore, I can't take the arrogance anymore.

[RealBitcoin]

we all know about the ongoing spam attack and the high fees but people like him are only using it to spread FUD and attack bitcoin for their personal gains.

So are you accusing me of "attacking" bitcoin without evidence? That is a very gentleman way of debating somebody.

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

And who in their right mind would switch to ETH? Great for pumpage and not much else. If Bitcoin is fucked then I'll be done with crypto.

I don't care who did what. It's the poor people that suffer for it. Many people got into Bitcoin in order to earn some money, so did I.

But as I see now that this was never meant to be a vehicle to save poor people, it's actually just another oligarchy to enrich the 1%, meanwhile others suffer.

[Xavofat]

"satoshi's vision"

Forum's common big blocker retard:

-I am satoshi's dick weed, without me he can't grow weed on his dick.

These clowns can be body parts of satoshi but none has his vision. That's for sure. 

-brainwashed Coretard

Meanwhile we are still forced to pay 50$/transaction, yeeeeah that is my 1 week net salary.

If you received your salary or part of your salary in BTC each week, most of your transactions would only have one input.  Currently, you can comfortably send transactions with fees of under 50 satoshi/byte and expect them to confirm, as you can see here.

If you use a reasonable transaction fee of 40 satoshi/byte and you multiply that by the median transaction size of 226 bytes, you would have a fee of 9040 satoshi, or 0.00009 BTC.  Doesn't sound too bad, does it?

they will ignore Bitcoin and jump to ETH instead.

ETH is not scalable.

But as I see now that this was never meant to be a vehicle to save poor people, it's actually just another oligarchy to enrich the 1%, meanwhile others suffer.

It's meant be a vehicle for financial sovereignty.  In the next financial crisis, you might regret insulting Bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

It's meant be a vehicle for financial sovereignty.  In the next financial crisis, you might regret insulting Bitcoin.

It meant to be many things, but currently it's just a bad joke ....

[wxa7115]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

It was to be expected, it is impossible to develop something so intricate with only one person and in such a short amount of time, it seems the miners did not foresee the devs will try UASF on them and now are trying desperate measures to try to avoid that, but it seems it is too late.

[Variogam]

The only thing collapsing is Blockstream-Core vision of crippled Bitcoin forever. The SegWit2x code worked as expected, SegWit2x nodes waited for 1st over 1M block before continuing.

[Rahar02]

Segwit is poison to bitcoin and needs to be avoided at all costs in any implementation. Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt with segwit to turn bitcoin into a banking settlement system. Every true bitcoiner should support Satoshis vision by supporting Bitcoin ABC http://www.bitcoinabc.org

It's funny how everyone shilling their implementation claims to be "satoshi's vision".

"Support XT, it's satoshi's vision"

"Support Classic, it's satoshi's vision"

"Support Unlimited, it's satoshi's vision"

Give me a break. Satoshi didn't foresee a lot of things we are experiencing now so "satoshi's vision" (whatever that is) is irrelevant with 2017's data.

I remember someone quote about what Satoshi thought on bitcoin block size and to prevent spam attack transactions, but he stick on 1Mb size. Not sure what he wants because people speculate and stated it Satoshi's vision according to their wishes.
If segwit2x code doesn't meet the requirements, than it will be denied or fail to get support from community.
Whatever it is, let's see what will happen on August 1st, as long as my bitcoin is safe in the wallet.

[pinkflower]

You keep missing the point: Garzik is setting a precedent by wanting to hardfork with unsafe code and unsafe time.

and core wanted a november code activated by christmas without giving a damn about usernodes symbiotic relationship validating said blocks..

Youre right! What do you think of the UASF, doing the reverse and giving the miners a choice to join with them or not to. And what do you think will happen to the miners who are signaling for Segwit BIP 141 this coming August?

[aesma]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

Surely you must be joking ? Millions of companies have thousands, millions and billions relying on Microsoft software ! The ransomware attack stopped the plants of automakers, banks, insurance companies, etc.

I work in the 200th biggest company on the planet and we are full of Microsoft shit, the IT bosses are all huge fans of Microsoft. Only a few servers were contaminated by the ransomware virus, but this confirms what I suspected all along, that the NSA can spy on everything we do, and that US companies are probably profiting from stolen information given by the NSA on their competitors.

[franky1]

when bscartel and their fanboys use the word conservative, you can tell they read reddit but never read a dictionary.

core are NOT conservative

"averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values."

segwit: NEW key pairs, new network topology, new block template
nothing traditional about that.

as for segwit being 'innovative' pfft.
their fixes/promises are empty and cannot be fully forfilled

there are many ways to solve the problems but core decided to go with the political definition not the literal definition
"just pay more"

[Tigggger]

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

[Proton2233]

It seems to me that the miners exaggerate their losses. They want more profits, and so are all being blackmailed. I heard a lot of talk about the price of a transaction is so high because the work miners do not generate revenue, but we see the deficiency of equipment all over the world and this means that the miners are lying.

[The One]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

That's irrelevant as usual people miss the point. All software have bugs. There are bugs that are minor, sometimes "terrible bugs" that can be costly. It is the "terrible bugs" that bitcoin need to avoid. So long testing is being done, bugs fixed, more testing... i'm ok with it. No need to panic. Minor bugs are a fact of life when running softwares.

[hv_]

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/issues/65#issuecomment-314221337

Developers are so incompetent that they propose a secret testnet, so it doesn't get attacked.

Fantastic! Just like Buggy Unlimited clowns resorted to closed source development to get a patch out, now these morons want to do closed source testing, for a totally realistic and robust test only to hardfork in a matter of a few months.

Anyone supporting this mess is losing it or is being paid to do so.

FFS.

Every software i've used always had bugs in them. Software gets updated all the time. Even the "mighty" Bill Gates' Windows had a long history of bugs.
Core had many bugs in the last 6 years. Bitcoin had bugs since the first version came out and Hal Finney helped Satoshi to fixed the bugs.

When Core makes bugs, Core fanboys stay silent (I didn't come on here attacking Core developers). When anyone else makes bugs, Core fanboys goes ballistic.

Now, if there is testing going on, bugs being fixed, then that's normal part of software development. When i made a game called Connect 4 for BBC Micro computer in the 1980s, i had a few bugs, and fixed them, before being released.

NO ONE IS INFALLIBLE.

This is not a good excuse. When you use buggy Microsoft software, you dont have thousands of dollars or hundreds of thousands or more invested in it. It might be easy for you to say that because you might only have a small investment in BTC, but make that investment large enough and you find yourself on the conservative side of things with development.

That's irrelevant as usual people miss the point. All software have bugs. There are bugs that are minor, sometimes "terrible bugs" that can be costly. It is the "terrible bugs" that bitcoin need to avoid. So long testing is being done, bugs fixed, more testing... i'm ok with it. No need to panic. Minor bugs are a fact of life when running softwares.

Good that you picking up that one.

Yes there are always bugs in every code line.

Most of the 'terrible' or 'show stoppers' you can find in UAT testing phases. But in bitcoin there is no bounty for attackers in testnets,
so in production you can be sure, any code line added is getting to increase the risk!

But I'm also very concerned about design 'bugs' like we have in SW -> e.g. moving the witnesses out of the blocks. This is next critical level nobody can tell you it works in production. It can be more terrible than your code bugs.

Finally we have economics working in Bitcoin >  a Nash equilibrium to save


Look at SW-  It is full of new code, other design, we hear it might change the Nash equilibrium - >  RISK , RISK, RISK

A simple block increase is a no-brainer!

Cut the down side!

[Herbert2020]

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

[hv_]

Do keep up. Now the spamming has stopped, either initiated by Barry Silbert and friends or the mining cartels, fees have plummeted again.

Fees may have plummeted from their highs, but they are still considerably higher than they were 6 months ago namely 5x higher.

Anyway, I always thought that it was the 'big block' side that was doing the spamming. It seemed to be the consensus on these forums and made logical sense, look there are too many transactions and fees are high we need bigger blocks.

But the timing of it stopping could now equally point to it being the 'small block' side doing it to force their solution of segwit through, now that it's highly likely that it's going through either with UASF or Segit2x no need to continue.

The 2mb part is still to come, if it's just a lull and resumes again post segwit, it will point back to the big blockers, because there will be zero reasons then for the small block side to do it. At least the question will be answered.

there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

.... and it is soooo eays and cheap with 1MB .......

[franky1]

there has been some speculation about who is spamming and why, but i personally think it was the miners all along!
they had the incentive: increasing fees and making more profit, also showing we need scaling solution
they also had the money to do it: the extra fees helped a lot! up to 3.5BTC fees per block is 10 times more than what you use for spamming.

.... and it is soooo eays and cheap with 1MB .......

BTCC used to offer free transactions to its customers as did xapo. all because they had control/links to pools, so could name their own price of what gets accepted into blocks.

obviously IF other pools were causing issues BTCC would still of remained the cheapest pools.. still offering free transactions and helping... but...

when looking at the stats.. it wasnt BTCC being "conservative".. it was actually Via and bitmain which had the average cheapest blocks. meaning while BTCC decided to get greedy and go for the highest tx's and screw even their own customers as well as being part of the "just pay more" crowd.. there were other pools still offering blockspace for free or even blocks with no fee's

btcc- DCG portfolio and BScartel supporter

[DooMAD]

Boycott the Blockstream/Core bitcoin takeover attempt

I've already outlined in other threads why people on both sides of the debate need to stop all this nonsense about "hostile takeovers" / "coups" / "benevolent dictators" / "changes in governance" / "taking control" / etc, when talking specifically about Developers (and that's any developers), what they may or may not be trying to do and how good or bad that thing might be.  Developers do not, should not and can not dictate governance.  Only the consensus of those securing the chain can do that.  It's therefore irrelevant to speculate on motives of developers or anyone deemed to be financially influencing developers, because those are not the people calling the shots.  Full nodes and miners are.  And again, this is aimed at people levelling the same accusations at alternative clients and competing development groups.

[pinkflower]

when bscartel and their fanboys use the word conservative, you can tell they read reddit but never read a dictionary.

core are NOT conservative

"averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values."

segwit: NEW key pairs, new network topology, new block template
nothing traditional about that.

as for segwit being 'innovative' pfft.
their fixes/promises are empty and cannot be fully forfilled

there are many ways to solve the problems but core decided to go with the political definition not the literal definition
"just pay more"

Thats your opinion. Do you want for BTC to stay the same with Bitcoin Core or do you have a better solution or implementation in mind? If you have one, care to tell us what it is and why?