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

[pereira4]

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?

If the blocks become huge and only corporations are able to run the mods which be easily bribed, and these corporations get thrown billions to compromise the bitcoin code by adding privacy unfriendly trash as the shit we've seen before in XT or the blockchain analysis stuff Jarzik is working on and they add it at protocol level, and since the blocks are too big you can't run a full node yourself with your own validating rules, what are you going to do?

You don't know what the rule of full validating nodes is or the game theory surrounding it. Go back to school.

[1714049993]

1714049993

[1714049993]

1714049993

[1714049993]

1714049993

[1714049993]

1714049993

[jonald_fyookball]

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/examining-bitfurys-scaling-research-9d62cb725477

[Lauda]

Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

You want me to debunk you, yet you've provided no evidence whatsoever?

What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.

The creator of it is a very good friend of mine. He has nicely contributed to the ecosystem, unlike cancerous idiots like yourself and jonald.

Yes, that is evidence. Evidence that some percentage of Steam gamers will likely not be Bitcoiners in 2015. That is a brain-dead criterium.

That's not even what the study says. You have reading comprehension problem. The hardware used to gather the data is a generous overestimation for the hardware used to run nodes.

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.

Which is a lie spread by the scammer CW and his religion of followers.

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/examining-bitfurys-scaling-research-9d62cb725477

Do not get me started on this corporate takeover change: https://archive.fo/yWNNj.
Or the Bitcoin ABC garbage: https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6n7hju/are_bitcoin_abc_nodes_under_attack/.

[jbreher]

Which is again another assertion for which you have provided no evidence.

You want me to debunk you, yet you've provided no evidence whatsoever?

No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.

What really makes it funny is that your gunbot sig makes you definitively a paid shill.

The creator of it is a very good friend of mine. He has nicely contributed to the ecosystem, unlike cancerous idiots like yourself and jonald.

You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.

You have reading comprehension.

Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.

[Lauda]

No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.

This is not even what we are talking about. Factually speaking, you're a shill. It does not need proving, especially not when you're diverting.

You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.

The latter is not even a word, and the foremost has nothing to do with my opinion on the hostile takeover attempt BU/ABC (or whatever scam name you try to use next time). Therefore, your statement is not logically coherent. Of course, your statements usually aren't.

Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.

Enjoying that Ver and Jihad money, are you?

[jbreher]

No. You are the one accusing me of being a paid shill. The burden of proof is upon you. Because, logic.

This is not even what we are talking about. Factually speaking, you're a shill. It does not need proving, especially not when you're diverting.

You are receiving payment for an advertisement in your sig. This is, by definition, shillery.

The latter is not even a word, and the foremost has nothing to do with my opinion on the hostile takeover attempt BU/ABC (or whatever scam name you try to use next time). Therefore, your statement is not logically coherent. Of course, your statements usually aren't.

Yes. I have reading comprehension. You, OTOH, have a lack of reading comprehension.

Enjoying that Ver and Jihad money, are you?

Quoted in entirety in order to memorialize your obtuseness, irrationality, and denial of logic.

[Lauda]

Quoted in entirety in order to memorialize your obtuseness, irrationality, and denial of logic.

Which is absolutely untrue. Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here? Definitely-not-paid.ABC.
Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.
I wonder whether franky agrees with the idea of $20k as the entry cost for nodes. Franky, show yourself.

[hv_]

Bitcoiners know $s are worthless. get rid of them and support the network, at any scale you could do.

[jbreher]

Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here?

Now you are being a special kind of stupid. My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests. 'My interests', defined herein for the purposes of this thread, consist essentially of the increased utility of Bitcoin, leading to the increased usage of Bitcoin, leading to wider adoption of Bitcoin, leading to the appreciation of my non-insignificant Bitcoin holdings. As I have held consistently.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

As to whether or not I am unwanted.... I guess that sucks to be you.

Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

[Lauda]

My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'.

You are not participating in any possible way.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests.

Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

Which is absolutely wrong. I am not supposed to advance the interest of anyone with the current signature that I am wearing.

As to whether or not I am unwanted....

Per definition, cancer.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

The quoted parts have nothing to do with what I wrote. A clear distinction (escalating, are we?) can be seen in your previous statements on non-mining nodes and the recent ones. I wonder why that is.

[jbreher]

My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'.

You are not participating in any possible way.

Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests.

Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

Which is absolutely wrong. I am not supposed to advance the interest of anyone with the current signature that I am wearing.

As to whether or not I am unwanted....

Per definition, cancer.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

The quoted parts have nothing to do with what I wrote. A clear distinction can be seen in your previous statements on non-mining nodes and the recent ones. I wonder why that is.

Again - quoting fully to avoid any impropriety, and to commemorate your obtuseness, ignorance, and malfeasance:

Again, if you are *unpaid* (not that anyone would believe this after following these threads around) and you are not actively participating in this community in any possible way, and you are likely unwanted, why are you here?

Now you are being a special kind of stupid. My mere presence here is 'participating in this community in any possible way'. Nevertheless, as I have indicated before, I am here looking after my interests. 'My interests', defined herein for the purposes of this thread, consist essentially of the increased utility of Bitcoin, leading to the increased usage of Bitcoin, leading to wider adoption of Bitcoin, leading to the appreciation of my non-insignificant Bitcoin holdings. As I have held consistently.

OTOH, with your being paid to advance the interests of 'gunbot' with paid sig advertising, you are by definition a shill.

As to whether or not I am unwanted.... I guess that sucks to be you.

Strangely enough, until CW and other scammers claimed that the peer-to-peer model was worthless (proxy-to-proxy datacenters seem to be desirable), neither Jonald nor you were diminishing the value of user nodes.

Bull-fucking-shit. Lie, lie, and lie again. As I responded to you the last time you propagated this lie:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1915733.msg19064080#msg19064080

(some emphasis not in original)

OK, I guess it is true that I was not "diminishing the value of user nodes". But that is just because you are evidently incapable of Englishing. I believe the word you were looking for was 'denigrating'. Which indeed is shown by the above quoted material. In case you _still_ can't grasp elementary grammar, it is impossible to 'diminish' an entity without directly interacting with that very entity. Because, English.

[Lauda]

Why are you unable to answer my questions/statements? The interests of your employer are being exposed, aren't they? Paid shilling by jbreher at its finest.

Interests of your employer? Got it. Your main interest (or that of your employer) is the centralization of Bitcoin and a transition from a peer-to-peer, to a proxy-to-proxy network.

FrankenSegwit and absurdly big blocks are an attack on Bitcoin which is going to attempt to weaken it with further centralization. Undeniable truths.

[hv_]

What is the effect of the Nash equilibrium in terms of block size and centralization?

[jbreher]

Why are you unable to answer my questions/statements? The interests of your employer are being exposed, aren't they? Paid shilling by jbreher at its finest.

What the hell are you bawling about? The only questions from you I can find in your last several posts is two rhetorical questions. To wit:

Interests of your employer?

and

(escalating, are we?)

As to the first, the only thing I do for my employer with respect to Bitcoin is act as Principal Representative to ANSI/INCITS's US national peer to ISO's committee on Blockchain Standardization. As to the second - yes, no, whatevs - doesn't matter.

[jonald_fyookball]

segwit is already franken-bitcoin with its technical debt, radical changes, anyone can spend outputs, deletable signatures (that you arent supposed to delete) , and perverse economic incentives.

[franky1]

when lauda cant prove anything he just cries shill or screams "nonsensical" or ad-hom

nothing new

anyway he cant explain the maths of the graphic and instead just attacks with "shill"
i think lauda should go back to scamming people by charging them fee's to be an escrow just to recover their own funds. rather than do anything actually technical to fix issues.
yep lauda cant even be arsed to report bugs that earn him money, he prefers bugs because he can scam money out of people through it

lauda cant even answer or even realise that the BScartel he adores so much are the ones linked to the banks

ask blockstream to speak to their boss barry silbert about his brother allen
ask bloq to speak to their boss barrysilbert about his brother allen

lauda cant even explain the ram calculations and even independantly thinkk for himself why that images maths of ram usage is wrong

all this segwit drama and finger pointing of social drama and lauda cant even wade through it to see whats hidden beneath. all he does is post his empty spoonfed crap from his "friends" becuase he trusts them

[franky1]

I wonder whether franky agrees with the idea of $20k as the entry cost for nodes. Franky, show yourself.

$20k entry costs.. pfft.. (im laughing)

oh lauda u are drinking the reddit "gigabytes my midnight" koolaid again

PLLLEEAAASSSEEE learn consensus
hint. if majority of nodes cant cope with XXXmb they wont upgrade to it. thus the network wont accept XXXmb blocks

no one is saying gigabytes by midnight rationally (apart from your FUD'Friends)

the network can grow naturally OVERTIME using consensus. it does not need blockstream halting blocksizes and using fud
the network can grow naturally OVERTIME using consensus. it does not need blockstream avoiding consensus and trying to slip in corporate code in via soft exploits

ask yourself why are your friends screaming scripts repeatedly about gigabytes by midnight but avoiding rational thoughts of 2mb this year and natural growth over time...

as for segwit.
go ask the litecoinpools that 'supposedly' support segwit, why are they too afraid to even use segwit keypairs themselves

please put ur ego aside and learn consensus
and next time you get an image lauda,, dont just spam it.. read it, study it, understand it and realise its flaws... i did try to teach you this lesson with segwit back in early 2016

[Mergesort]

I want to keep Bitcoin decentralized. Companies trying to decide which way to go and developing their own secret code is a super nogo. You can talk about segwit and segwit2x all you want. It's not what technology is going to be implemented it's who is behind it and who wants bitcoin to be decentralized and open.

[dinofelis]

Ok. I want to ask a stupid question here. As someone who has been really out of the loop on the technical side of things and I also have really no idea of the politics behind these factions... but I want to ask 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(which is extremely unlikely but lets go with that) 1MB or 2MB or 3MB or 4 MB or 10 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 would not be a storage issue, for the average person. The average person(western) 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 bucks 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. (I note that this number may be higher as others point out).

How about speed of that internet? Of course it can handle it... 10MB = 80 mb(mega bits) 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.

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 means almost everyone in the world would be using BTC to make 100MBblocks full every 10 minutes every day every week every year...


So what is the issue? Please lay it out for me, I have been away for awhile.  Am I missing something? Maybe poorer people cant afford to host a node is the issue? But are they hosting it now anyways, probably not...

Please note I did edit some things as I realized I did not word some things correctly and some things were exclamatory for no reason. Thank you below for the great responses about the spam attacks, did not consider that. I guess that changes my mind then on what the real solution is, this may have made me more confused than before I posted to be honest.

You are perfectly right.

The real issue is that one wants to push agendas, and uses this false problem to do so.

While it is true that making bigger blocks makes a bigger block chain that is not to be afforded to be downloaded by the most modest of potential bitcoin users, one forgets to mention:

1) that to be a bitcoin user, one doesn't need the block chain in its whole, and a light client is perfect.
2) that the number of full nodes that do not mine has nothing to do with the decentralization of bitcoin.

The nasty thing about bitcoin is that it has lost most of its ideal decentralization, but not because of the size of block chains, but rather because of the economies of scale of proof of work.  Bitcoin's design was exactly made such that "full nodes" have nothing to say, and only MINERS decide on consensus (of chain history and protocol).  Only proof of work is a "credential" in bitcoin, exactly because Satoshi wanted to avoid the number of full nodes to play any role (it is too easy to sybil it).

And the mining entities, that make the decisions, are the mining pools and there are essentially 20 of them.  That's the real state of "decentralization" of bitcoin (the majority is even in the hands of only 5 of them which may be sock puppets of 1 or 2 people).

In order to hide that ugly face, a lot of wind is made concerning the importance of "Joe with his full node in his basement",  but that node has nothing to say.  Joe's node can only download whatever single block chain the miners mine, or stop.  If Joe's node stops, it is as if Joe switched off his node.

A light client can check that one isn't serving bullshit by just downloading the header chain, which contains all the proof of work ; and once that header chain is verified, any specific transaction can be checked by verifying the Merkel tree branch in the block at hand.  A light client doesn't have to check for double spends, because the miners already did so, and if the miners decided amongst themselves to include a double spend in the consensus and continue to keep consensus over that (continue to build blocks on top of that), then in any case, you cannot do anything about it, and that double spend is now in any case part of bitcoin.

So the raw truth of bitcoin is that as a user, you are in any case at the mercy of what the miner pool consortium decides (it has full consensus decision power), whether that is "according to the rules of bitcoin you thought were in place or not", and once you accept those decisions (and you can't do anything about it), a light client is sufficient to check whether a given transaction has been decided by that pool consortium or not (nobody can fake it).

There are some advantages to running a full node, and one has to find out for oneself whether those advantages are sufficient to spend the needed modest investment of such a node is worth it or not.  But it has nothing to do with the "decentralization" of bitcoin.  Because bitcoin was exactly designed for it not to matter.

That ugly truth cannot be heard, and that's why a lot of fuzz is made by bitcoin evangelists about the importance of full nodes.  But they are about as useful for the decentralization of bitcoin, as hanging a talisman around your neck is against car accidents.

[Lauda]

-snip-

Tl;dr: The shill, jbreher, tries to defend the interests of his employer by wanting to centralize Bitcoin.

when lauda cant prove anything he just cries shill or screams "nonsensical" or ad-hom

I have pretty debunked anything you've ever written. There is no need to repeat my statements ad naseum.

I wonder whether franky agrees with the idea of $20k as the entry cost for nodes. Franky, show yourself.

$20k entry costs.. pfft.. (im laughing)

oh lauda u are drinking the reddit "gigabytes my midnight" koolaid again

Are you brain dead? It does seem like you are. The $20k has nothing to do with reddit (other that the video was shared on both r/bitcoin and r/btc). That's the number that Craig Wright mentioned in a recent "scaling conference" in the Netherlands (sponosred by Bitcoin.com and Bitmain of course). This is the same number that shills like jbreher and jonald agree with. I am asking you, whether you agree with $20k as an entry cost for a node.
The full video was removed ( ) but this snippet should be enough for reference: https://vid.me/frzw.
Answer this clearly (don't write useless walls of text). Do you, or do you not agree with $20k as the entry cost for a node (as mentioned by C. scammer Wright)?