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

[jbreher]

-snip-

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

lie...

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.

and lie again...

The $20k ... is the same number that shills like jbreher ... agree with.

Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

On top of being a proven shill for gunbot even.

You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?

[hv_]

... blob ...

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

... blob ...

 

[Lauda]

-snip-

There is no lie. You are most definitely a shill; the pattern is very obvious. You remind me of a scammer from this forum, he's exactly like a pest. Literally near zero people want him around, yet he refuses to leave. Unwanted cancer that sticks around.

Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

And what number, do you *cough*, agree is *acceptable* as a entry cost for a node (and not the non-listening ones)?

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

In case you wanted a decentralized BTCT, then it possibly should. Since this is a centralized forum, it does not need to.

[hv_]

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

In case you wanted a decentralized BTCT, then it possibly should. Since this is a centralized forum, it does not need to.

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

[Lauda]

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

[hv_]

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

Hahaha - at least we agree that it needs a central forum to agree centrally about decentralization needs.

[franky1]

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)?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

as for you debunking anything, no
all you ever shout is "nonsensical" "wrong" "adhom" "i didnt read your walls of text"

saying such as the things above do not amount to you debunking anything
it really is time you learn consensus. it will help you
then run independant tests and scenarios

then when your handed images. actually read understand test and fully grasp what its telling you and work out if what it is telling you is valid, correct and realistic. dont just paste it because you trust your "friends"

[Lauda]

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

Hahaha - at least we agree that it needs a central forum to agree centrally about decentralization needs.

Pretty much, yeah. However, certain shills will cry about censorship et. al. if the majority of the users do not side with their (obviously faulty) views.

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)?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

There you have it. As long as you do not support scammers who are trying to push an idea of $20k nodes today (this includes anyone who supports C. Wright, e.g. Ver, Jihan), you are not as bad as the shills like Jonald.

as for you debunking anything, no

Grow up and admit being wrong, idiot. The number of times that you've been debunked is converging to infinity. Do I have to remind you of your FUD with the sigops limit in recent versions of Bitcoin Core?

[hv_]

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)?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

as for you debunking anything, no
all you ever shout is "nonsensical" "wrong" "adhom" "i didnt read your walls of text"

saying such as the things above do not amount to you debunking anything
it really is time you learn consensus. it will help you
then run independant tests and scenarios

then when your handed images. actually read understand test and fully grasp what its telling you and work out if what it is telling you is valid, correct and realistic. dont just paste it because you trust your "friends"

We should rather agree that the bitcoin price of such a node should be stable.  

EDIT: It also does not really make sense to 'serve' high high end miners with a Rasp PI - that does note really fit into a 'stable' hardware picture to me, rather shows that there might be (hard- AND software) bottlenecks for high end scaling ?

[franky1]

We should rather agree that the bitcoin price of such a node should be stable.  

EDIT: It also does not really make sense to 'serve' high high end miners with a Rasp PI - that does note really fit into a 'stable' hardware picture to me, rather shows that there might be (hard- AND software) bottlenecks for high end scaling ?

i do not agree that we should stick to Raspi specs.. but i do not believe the fud of $20k servers this next decade
same as
i do not agree that we should stick to 1mb base blocks... but i do not believe the fud of "gigabytes by midnight"

normal natural growth, where obviously nodes that cant handle it wont run the software and as such new rules wont activate due to consensus.

the issues arise is when bypassing consensus and then go fud extremes to blame others when things dont go to plan by those trying to force an issue

dynamics can work and keep things on a healthy natural growth, without devs or corporations control and without things going to extremes or stalling due to fear/fud

[franky1]

as for you debunking anything, no

Grow up and admit being wrong, idiot. The number of times that you've been debunked is converging to infinity. Do I have to remind you of your FUD with the sigops limit in recent versions of Bitcoin Core?

ha ha ha
seriously, you need to READ

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1897557.140

read it properly, thoroughly and completely.

i mean actually take some time and read it properly. no excuses about how you dont need to waste time on walls of text.

EG
i said it NEEDS low sigop limit to solve quadratics..
not the cludgy math crap

you went on a rant that there is no txsigops because its in policy and done by maths of segwit.

meaning you agree there is no low txsigops in consensus, but you didnt want to admit as much. so wanted to pretend a new argument where you thought i said that core already had a low txsigops.

i repeated "this is why REAL rules. real code, should be used.. not bait and switch hope and faith cludgy maths crap"

you ignored

i repeated "by saying nodes can by pass the fee math cludge is correct.
but thats why real rules need to be placed in the consensus header file. rather than the cludge
P.S the blocksigop limit is in the consensus. but from a network wide overview. where the maths cludge of core can be by passed. my initial arguments still stand."

you ignored so I  repeated
"a txsigops limit of <4k in consensus header file solves the native quadratics.!!"
you ignored and you said
"No. You didn't even admit that you were wrong about the in-existence of the 4k limit per TX, as that's a policy rule. How sad."

the policy rule and validation.cpp is where i REPEATEDLY referred to as segwits "math cludge"

i then tried to highlight
"thats maths cludge is CORE centric... not NETWORK consensus "
and
"there needs to be a proper RULE of 4k sigops that does not change."
and
"thats why having <4 maxtxsigops in the consensus.h header file would solve the issue so easily"

...

really go read it properly. you debunked nothing!!!!

[Darkbot]

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher, Hv and above all the biggest copy/paste noob+BU troll   ****rolling drums****   paid shill Franky1.

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

[Lauda]

i said it NEEDS low sigop limit to solve quadratics..

Those limits do not solve anything. Limiting n does not solve the complexity problem. You are a true, and delusional shill as you can't admit to being wrong. This is often see with jonald as well, but rarely with other members (not trolls or other mentally challenged individuals).

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher, Hv and above all the biggest copy/paste noob+BU troll   ****rolling drums****   paid shill Franky1.

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

As I've told you, it's always a few *people* who do not participate in this community in any way other than shill for attacks on Bitcoin and spread misinformation.

[jbreher]

-snip-

You are most definitely a shill; the pattern is very obvious.

What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to? An opinion which does not comport to your preconceived notions, which in turn have been inculcated bereft of critical thought?

You have absolutely no basis for your slander.

Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat.

Meanwhile, you still are acting as a definitive shill for gunbot. Shameful, really.

Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

And what number, do you *cough*, agree is *acceptable* as a entry cost for a node (and not the non-listening ones)?

Nice deflection. In other words, you did indeed lie - as proofed by your inability to support you libelous claim.

That shown, I'll even give you an answer. As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher...

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

You have no fucking idea. Even when evidence of your absurdity is but a click or three away. Cocksure in your ignorance - a perfect representation of your ilk.

[franky1]

lauda all you ever say is wrong.. then make up some fake argument or just some comment like adhom, wall of text, shill, wrong simply because wrong

you have never had a valid argument

we know your only expertise is scamming a few percent off people through all your little money swapping escrow PM stuff.. you should just concentrate on that. go play with your sig campaigns

it seems unless you willing to understand and learn the code you should try not to get involved in code discussion. and instead just make a bot that repeats "nonsensical so wrong", as that would save you time

anyway, putting lauda failed attempts to the side
8-10mb is safe so anything below that is super safe. and borderline anal safe. there is no reason to stick with 1mb base.
al thats required is to drop the txsigops to below 4k or ensure it never goes above 4k and make it a proper consensus rule instead of the cludge core made

[Lauda]

What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to?

Good question.

Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat.

Whining does not help when things are obvious even to the average reader. Of course, when some other users mention your unwanted shilling you use ad hominem against them (e.g. Darkbot) or call them a X/Y/Z shill.

As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.

Vague statement; not surprising. Any increase in cost will choke off a part of the usage, thus you do not support any increase in costs?

8-10mb is safe so anything below that is super safe. and borderline anal safe. there is no reason to stick with 1mb base.

Which is an absolute lie and has nothing to do with reality. 10 MB isn't even remotely safe. You're pulling numbers out of your behind. I am not generally against a well planned hard fork, but comparing Segwit to a rushed block size increase is nonsensical. The latter is useless in comparison.
The number of people arguing nonsense such as yourself is very low. The number of people with any relevant contributions arguing these positions on bitcointalk: 0.

[nagobinga]

Some large companies want to raise the block size by 8 MB to facilitate traffic flow of Blockchain transactions.

[Meuh6879]

Some large companies want to mine incompatible blocks to push BitcoinCash token.
Some large companies want to mine dynamic blocks to push AsicBoost Contract for priorize exchanges transactions.
Some large companies want to centralise blocks production to offer a mastercard/visa/swift network for bank for free.








You see, it work for many pattern ... 

[hv_]

Some large companies want to raise the block size by 8 MB to facilitate traffic flow of Blockchain transactions.

They want to generate user flow - good!

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)

This will attract more users

This will attract more companies (running decent nodes since the need to ensure been paid in time)




nice pattern for all users - do not need RASP Pis any more - buy themselves bitcoin !

[jbreher]

What 'pattern', exactly, are you referring to?

Good question.

So you are accusing me of being a shill, without presenting any supporting evidence. You, shitty kitty, are a cad.

Further, your proofless slanderous attacks only reduce your credibility even further. Even your (former) acolytes have to be WTF-ing by now. You, Lauda, are an insignificant gnat.

when some other users mention your unwanted shilling you use ad hominem against them (e.g. Darkbot) or call them a X/Y/Z shill.

Let me get this straight. Darkbot straight up accuses me of being a shill, with no evidence presented, and you assert that I am using ad hominem against Darkbot? idonthtinkthatwordmeanswhatyouthinkitmeans.png I merely used an epithet against Darkbot.

Further, I did not accuse Darkbot of being a shill. I accused you of being a shill. For it is evident for all to see. You are shilling gunbot right in your signature.

As much money as it takes to not choke off usage.

Vague statement; not surprising. Any increase in cost will choke off a part of the usage, thus you do not support any increase in costs?

You are exactly wrong. An increase in hardware cost will not choke off usage. It will allow the network to handle more capacity. Therefore allowing more usage.