I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't.

[Iranus]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

OK, fair point.  However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did.

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

Offchain first.  It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size.

It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction.  You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed.  That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions.

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO.

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space.  Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well.  If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that.

The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users.

[1714897373]

1714897373

[1714897373]

1714897373

[1714897373]

1714897373

[franky1]

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

well lets take copper wire ADSL that the UK averaged a DECADE ago

0.5mb upload(2mb down)

0.5mbit/s = 5.4 GByte daily UP
2mbit/s = 21.6 GByte daily down

because of bits to bytes and then 1second to 24hours.. easy maths is to take whatever mbit speed you have and multiply it by 10800 to get the mbyte per day
(x / 8 * 60 * 60 * 24)=10800

thats mbytes per day.. or more simply multiply your xmbit per sec by 10.8 to get gbytes per day...

so say you had 1mb up on fibre
10.8gbyte of data can be sent from your pc per day

[hv_]

Any idea what kinda node this little Swiss private bank will gonna run?  Rasp PI

Banks should not be the only people running nodes.

Do you really beleive Laudi has any idea about that at all or is payd for telling the FUD?

Quote from Lauda just three posts before yours:

It is of utmost importance to keep the cost of running nodes as low as possible. However, this does not mean that we should force a system which must work on a raspberry fee (which is often what another type of cancerous idiots tend to exaggerate with).

Please read the thread before posting.

"bitcoin should not grow because americans might need to pay 3 hours of minimum wage labour more PER MONTH to use it
but dont worry about tx fee, just pay more, it doesnt matter if cuba, india, africa have to pay 40 hours of labour PER TX!"

Transaction fees should be approximately 20 cents right now.  40 satoshi/byte or sometimes even less is good enough when the network isn't undergoing a spam attack.

In my view, there's a fine balance.  The first step should be offchain scaling or alterations of onchain transactions like SegWit - the second step should be onchain scaling, when there's no other clear options available.  The bigger the max block size, the more space that's open for long-term spamming and eventually node centralisation.

Read before posting.

Where is written 'only banks' ?

OK, fair point.  However, poorly interpreting (or being hyperbolic about) your wording is not the same as actually lying and acting like Lauda said the exact opposite of what they did.

Once you could point me to, pls explain why you want people do the txs rather off-chain than onchain? Since this will be the result of your order, correct?

Offchain first.  It doesn't mean people should do all of their transactions offchain, it just means that for microtransactions offchain transactions are necessary, and that it's important to be as efficient as possible before raising the block size.

It was never actually practical to walk into a coffee shop and do a zero-confirmation transaction.  You can either do that zero-confirmation and have the merchant risk not getting their money, or you can stand there saying "hang on, just a few minutes", until your transaction gets confirmed.  That's the scenario that needs offchain transactions.

And if you got that, than tell us, how far is that away, from moving people into alts directly?

Not at all comparable to altcoins, nor is raising the block size through a hard fork IMO.

Last, what do you think is more expensive, spamming 1MB blocks or 2MB blocks up to the limit?

It's the same cost to spam the same amount of space.  Neither SegWit nor block size increases would actually mitigate spam very well.  If they wanted to fill the whole block I recognise that it would be more expensive, but it's still not very expensive to do that.

The point is that a higher block size means there's more space in which it's possible for someone to spam and put strain on node users.

Ok. No of your points is addressing the risk of SW and compares it with simple BS increase.

All efforts you do is more off chain ( first...). This will change code, design AND Nash equilibrium ( discussed in the ck's SW2x thread).

Are you still just fear the HF ? Or now rather fear the other 3 more realistic risks I outlined?

My point is clear. Do only such changes if you really understand all impacts. SW changes just too much and bitcoin network is too complex.

So do little BS increases and see. HF is well known to cryptoland.

[Lauda]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

"Crappy telephone copper wire"? What has this got to do with anything? It is very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and there must be a reason for the low number of inbound connections. A true and longstanding node will easily hit the default cap of 125 connections. If you have optic fibre (100 or 1000 Mbps upload speed), then you should be spending at least several TB of bandwidth per month (not 1 GB per day).
Either your IP is dynamic or something else is limiting your Bitcoin node.

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

"I am comfortable with $100 fees. Based on my experience, I can not fathom why others are complaining about $5 fees." - Do you not see how statements like this yours are fundamentally flawed?

[The One]

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

well lets take copper wire ADSL that the UK averaged a DECADE ago

0.5mb upload(2mb down)

0.5mbit/s = 5.4 GByte daily UP
2mbit/s = 21.6 GByte daily down

because of bits to bytes and then 1second to 24hours.. easy maths is to take whatever mbit speed you have and multiply it by 10800 to get the mbyte per day
(x / 8 * 60 * 60 * 24)=10800

thats mbytes per day.. or more simply multiply your xmbit per sec by 10.8 to get gbytes per day...

so say you had 1mb up on fibre
10.8gbyte of data can be sent from your pc per day

ADSL is pants 

[The One]

Are you kidding? I run a full node on my Core I7-4790k 4.0ghz, use it daily for other things, including games, video editing/conversion and check my wallet data periodically and had no problems. So what is your issue?

Periodically? Are you sure you are not running a non-listening node? Mine eats up over 1 TB of bandwidth per month very easily and I can't possibly imagine running the node on the same system that I use for work (not even with the current block size).

I have no idea of my bandwidth (don't check at all) as i have optic fibre in UK and not some crappy telephone copper wire that other internet services provides. Mine has no cap at all, unlike other internet services. I download all my favourite TV programs as i don't have 18 to 20 minutes per hour to waste on watching adverts. My network traffic on my wallet shows the usual download of new blocks but sending out more, roughly 1gb daily. I have the usual 8 outbound and on average 5 inbound (tends to fluctuate as my wallet auto banned some inbound connections for some reason)

"Crappy telephone copper wire"? What has this got to do with anything? It is very clear that you have no idea what you're talking about and there must be a reason for the low number of inbound connections. A true and longstanding node will easily hit the default cap of 125 connections. If you have optic fibre (100 or 1000 Mbps upload speed), then you should be spending at least several TB of bandwidth per month (not 1 GB per day).
Either your IP is dynamic or something else is limiting your Bitcoin node.

Based on my experience, i can not fathom why others are complaining.

"I am comfortable with $100 fees. Based on my experience, I can not fathom why others are complaining about $5 fees." - Do you not see how statements like this yours are fundamentally flawed?

Simple. Low upload and download speed. Optic fibre; high upload and download speed. Forget about the false sales patter of promised download speed that no one seems to get.

Don't know about that, setting is in correct order, Perhaps others are banning me. IP is dynamic but rarely ever changes, once or twice a year.

No. There is a difference between subjective statement like mine and objective statement like yours.

[XbladeX]

Big block at end will lead to biger centraization of BTC and centralization is leading to problem.
I see today how BTC is fucked up becouse one asic comany shake whole market they can threaten all people in space becouse they sell miners so you have to listen to them at proposals.
Bitcoins supose to be resistant to centralization and current mining issue is getting to paint where we see why DECENTRALIZATION in mining is so needed.
There will be no decentralization when one china party have 51%+ power over network.

[Meuh6879]

Stats from my node :

- limited to 25 connexions (working days)
- 3Gb per day (upload blocks to others in sync. job)
- Less than 1Gb per day if not (week-end, for example ... fall to 15-18 connexions)
- core 2 duo 2,9GHz (less than 15% of CPU) + 2Gb RAM
- full node (260Gb partition allowed)
- 7 years old machine (780 USD price, same machine now = 480 USD)

That's why i want SegWit and not a Block increase.
Block increase is an idiotic solution with the developper brain possibilities.

And with the new Tablet/Smartphone with Android system (Atom 64bits 2,4GHz dual-core) ... and 256GB storage, i want a bitcoin core (complet blockchain) first on Android platform. 

[franky1]

Stats from my node :

- limited to 25 connexions (working days)
- 3Gb per day (upload blocks to others in sync. job)
- Less than 1Gb per day if not (week-end, for example ... fall to 15-18 connexions)
- core 2 duo 2,9GHz (less than 15% of CPU) + 2Gb RAM
- full node (260Gb partition allowed)
- 7 years old machine (780 USD price, same machine now = 480 USD)

That's why i want SegWit and not a Block increase.
Block increase is an idiotic solution with the developper brain possibilities.

do you even know segwit..
i think you need to look at the empty promises vs realistic scenarios and see your hyping up something that offers very little

[jbreher]

And that's not the real issue. The real issue is that - if you're not willing to part with less than a half-bitcoin in order to run a fully-validating, non-mining wallet, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative. Fuck right off.

Who are you, to force me to pay half a Bitcoin, to achieve financial sovereignty?

Look, peabrain - I'm not forcing you to do anything. First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Leave this forum and Bitcoin,

Fuck right off.

[franky1]

dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.
he takes things out of context alot because of all the reddit scripts he gets spoonfed

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

i feel sorry for him as he seems to have wasted the last few years not learning the real utility of bitcoin and is just penny grabbing to stay afloat
i tried helping him but then he just cries "walls of text".. so you cant teach an old cat new tricks

[jonald_fyookball]

Big blocks aren't a problem?  But if there's big blocks that means everyone will be free to
conduct transactions on-chain.  And if that happens, how will Blockstream make money from its patented sidechains?

[Lauda]

-snip-

You've failed to address anything, thus your post is worthless. As said, for an average node with that connection you should be spending at least several TB worth of data.

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality. Only a delusional idiot or a paid infiltrator could write something like this. Nobody wants you here; the same goes with Jonald. Why are you here?

dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

Incoherent statements by someone who did not read the code themselves. Ironic.

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.

Which is absolute nonsense and something which you could not possibly know.

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

If anyone is an expert here, it ain't you, nor the duo of j-degenerates.

[jbreher]

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality.

Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes.

[Lauda]

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality.

Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes.

You have provided absolutely no kind of evidence, unless I've missed it and/or you've stealthy inserted it into some post. "Reasoning" is not evidence, considering you're a paid shill.
This is real evidence:

https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

[jonald_fyookball]

The benefits of non mining fully validating nodes to the network are greatly exaggerated to say the least.  They only thing they really do is help support SPV. 

[jonald_fyookball]

Thanks for bringing that paper to my attention Lauda.  Thoroughly debunking it will be a delight just like I
trashed the SPV myths and the LN myths. 

It's easy to utterly destroy the narratives of those who have positions based on non-reality. 

[franky1]

dont worry about lauda. he admitted last year that he hasnt even read a line of code, and also doesnt know how long it takes to sync to the network.

Incoherent statements by someone who did not read the code themselves. Ironic.

lauda just to remind you bitcoin is wrote in C++ not java
http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453062298.0
"20:24    Lauda    Bitcoin does not use Java right?"

i believe he runs a node using amazon server and wants to cry about the cost of bandwidth (amazon subscription costs) but has no clue about computer costs, stats, utility.

Which is absolute nonsense and something which you could not possibly know.

http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453064029.0
20:53    phantomcircuit    Lauda, it would take ~12 days to synchronize from the wifi here at 1MB
21:04    Lauda    phantomcircuit 12 days..?
21:17    Lauda    That seems like quite long.
21:17    Rebroad    Lauda, anyway, 12 days is not a long time for someone wanting to run a full-node... I mean, what's the rush?!
21:17    Lauda    That's almost half a month.. it is long to set up one.
21:17    Rebroad    Lauda, yes, but why the rush?
21:18    belcher    time is money
21:18    Lauda    Exactly.
21:18    Rebroad    belcher, running a full node doesn't make money
21:18    belcher    Rebroad if you're using bitcoin instead of some other currency, presumably its valuable to you
21:18    Lauda    You lose money waiting.
21:18    belcher    it doesnt make you "money" per se but theres still economic value in it
21:18    Rebroad    Lauda, how would you lose money?
21:18    Lauda    If you're paying for a VPS
21:19    Lauda    12 days of lost money.
21:19    Rebroad    Lauda, if you're running a full node, it'll cost you the same to run it no matter how long it takes to download the blockchain
21:19    Lauda    Imagine compiling code that takes 12 days instead of 1?
21:19    Lauda    No time lost?
21:20    Rebroad    Lauda, belcher, I don't think you understand what motivates people to run full-nodes
21:20    Lauda    ...
21:20    Lauda    you're weird.
21:20    Rebroad    Lauda, you've still now answered my question. Rush to do what?
21:20    Lauda    Time is valuable, time should not be wasted unless necessary.
21:21    Rebroad    Lauda, you could argue that running a full-node IS a waste of time... it's either a waste of time to run it, or it isn't... but running it involves downoading the blockchain.. it's part and parcel of running a full-node
21:22    Lauda    I wouldn't bother setting up a node that takes 12 days to set up.
21:22    Lauda    No way.
21:23    Lauda    Imagine a situation where user has no full node, they need it for reason X to use Y
21:23    Lauda    so wait 12 days before using it?

he tries hard to sound like an expert who cough gets paid to consult cough. yet loves penny grabbing his sig campaign schemes and charging people for things they can do themselves.

If anyone is an expert here, it ain't you, nor the duo of j-degenerates.

lauda, go spend more time reading reference material and less time on reddit propoganda scripts.
its proven time and time again that you failed the basics..

even now you cant explain the tier network, upstream filters, and why segwit keypair utility is not possible to test on mainnet now, even when everything is supposedly (in your eyes) backward compatible..
reminder: i gave you a hint april 2016

anyway. getting back on point of the topic:

as for the graphic of statistics lauda has pasted several times.. does he even know maths to actually check before pasting
EG
blocks 0.5mb.....graphic shows 6.2gb daily traffic.............. (facepalm)
..........
hint: there are only 144 blocks a day you dont even need a calculator to do the maths (hint: number in graphic is out by 86 multiples)
and dont even gt me started on the facepalming of ram in that graphic

[Lauda]

The benefits of non mining fully validating nodes to the network are greatly exaggerated to say the least.  They only thing they really do is help support SPV.  

Absolute nonsense which can only be spread by centralizing agents.

Thanks for bringing that paper to my attention Lauda.  Thoroughly debunking it will be a delight just like I
trashed the SPV myths and the LN myths.  

Both of your articles are the laughing stock of any Bitcoin developer (besides the few BU/Jihan paid ones who are malicious actors anyways).

-snip-

I am not even in that channel. Why are you trying to defame my name? Who is paying you to do this? I do not trust you.

as for the graphic of statistics lauda has pasted several times.. does he even know maths to actually check before pasting
EG
blocks 0.5mb.....graphic shows 6.2gb daily traffic.............. (facepalm)
..........
hint: there are only 144 blocks a day you dont even need a calculator to do the maths (hint: number in graphic is out by 86 multiples)

You have no idea how Bitcoin works. Who are you to judge anything? Block size * number of blocks per day != bandwidth total spend per day. Any idiot should know this by now.
Strangely enough, it is always the people with zero contributions to this community, the code, development, nor build process (et. al.) that try to centralize Bitcoin and claim they know their stuff.

[jbreher]

First, you seem to not understand the _actual_ cost of running a non-mining, fully validating wallet. See my previous reply above. Second, your cheap skinflint demand to get a free ride by crippling the Bitcoin network is crippling the Bitcoin network. Your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin network security is a net negative.

Which is absolute nonsense and couldn't be further from reality.

Well, then you should have no problem disproving at least one portion of what I typed with evidence of facts and reasoning therefrom. Instead, all you've got so far is platitudes.

You have provided absolutely no kind of evidence, unless I've missed it and/or you've stealthy inserted it into some post. "Reasoning" is not evidence, considering you're a paid shill.

Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence. What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.

This is real evidence:

https://twitter.com/TuurDemeester/status/881851053913899009
Do you want a peer-to-peer network, or a proxy-to-proxy network?

Yes, that is evidence. Evidence that some percentage of Steam gamers will likely not be Bitcoiners in 2015.

That is a brain-dead criterium.

If you want to be a first-order member of the network that protects the most significant financial technology since the 1400's, buck up for a real machine. If not, your so-called 'contribution' to Bitcoin security is a net negative.