Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

[LvM]

Bitcoin is not designed for micro-transactions.

Oh my, this is so much of Bullshit.

Best comment I've seen here.

[1715011880]

1715011880

[1715011880]

1715011880

[1715011880]

1715011880

[piotr_n]

Yeah, keep trolling guys. I surely care

[jdillon]

angry internet trolls like ShadowOfHarbringer and Gavin.

I'm doing well this month, so far I've been called an "Angry Internet Troll", a "coward", and a "nazi".

Ha, and I hear you called Peter either "The Devil's Advocate" or "The Antichrist" at the conference. (my source wasn't quite sure)

As I was saying, I think all this talk is a bit pointless and distracting from real work that could be done, so I'll do what I can to end this thread in the usual internet tradition.

Heil Hiter!

[jgarzik]

Little suggestion to the dev team: when dropping the block size limit, also consider implementing "replacement code" that would give block generators the ability to control the block limit themselves through soft-limits.

Block size soft limit is already a configurable parameter inside bitcoind.

[paraipan]

angry internet trolls like ShadowOfHarbringer and Gavin.

I'm doing well this month, so far I've been called an "Angry Internet Troll", a "coward", and a "nazi".

Your "thick skin" should help you surpass the shock in no time. Meanwhile just address some points presented in this thread and don't feed other trolls, if it's not too much to ask.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Yeah, keep trolling guys. I surely care

Nobody is trolling here, seriously. We are just pointing out that your arguments are idiotic.

[piotr_n]

Meanwhile just address some points presented in this thread and don't feed other trolls, if it's not too much to ask.

I think we must give him some time to consult the answers with the lawyers first

Without an explicit written permission, he seems to be only entitled to giving replies on whether he is a nazi, a troll, or a coward..

[caveden]

Little suggestion to the dev team: when dropping the block size limit, also consider implementing "replacement code" that would give block generators the ability to control the block limit themselves through soft-limits.

Block size soft limit is already a configurable parameter inside bitcoind.

I'm not sure we're talking the same thing here.
What I call "soft limit" is not a personal limit on the blocks you'll generate or relay.
What I mean would be a set of value-pairs (X,Y), where X is a limit for block acceptance, and Y is the number of block deeps a third-party block violating X needs to be in the chain for you to accept to mine on top of it.
For example, let's say, for block size soft limit you set (1Mb, 1), (5Mb, 2) and (10Mb, 3). That means that if you receive a block larger than 1Mb, you refuse to build on top of it, unless it has already another block on top of it. For >5Mb, it needs to be 2 blocks deep. For 10Mb, 3 blocks deep and so on.
I also strongly suggest soft-limits on "percentage of unknown transactions (not in memory pool)", because that's how a spammer-miner would create gigantic blocks: by filling it with transactions that he does not intend to broadcast, as that would require paying lots of fees.

AFAIK none of these are implemented, right?

[caveden]

Meanwhile just address some points presented in this thread and don't feed other trolls, if it's not too much to ask.

Every point presented on this subject has already being addressed. Multiple times.

[piotr_n]

Meanwhile just address some points presented in this thread and don't feed other trolls, if it's not too much to ask.

Every point presented on this subject has already being addressed. Multiple times.

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

[caveden]

Obviously none of you is going to address jdillon's key argument, that is:
Bitcoin Foundation is doing (more or less consciously) everything to:
1) get bitcoin under control of the US government.
2) disturb anyone in solving the scaling issue by other means than increasing the block size

This is totally unrelated and a sort of ad hominem.

I'm also wary of this Vesseness guy. He seems the typical ""capitalist"" that won't hesitate to use the government to rule out his competitors. I'm not very found of the bitcoin foundation either, as you can guess.

That has nothing to do with the block size limit. This damn constant should never have been created in the first place.... the day I learned about it I knew it would be a problem...

[Gavin Andresen]

Every point presented on this subject has already being addressed. Multiple times.

Yes.  If you're feeling helpful, please create a wiki page or other document that organizes all of the pro/con arguments: economic and technical. And maybe another wiki page that organizes all of the various proposals for how to increase the block size.

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

[caveden]

Meanwhile just address some points presented in this thread and don't feed other trolls, if it's not too much to ask.

Every point presented on this subject has already being addressed. Multiple times.

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

Again, these point have nothing to do with whether a central planning is necessary to avoid market cartelization on the bitcoin network, or whether we have any technical reason to keep this damn constant there (we don't).

Dropping the hard-coded block size limit is totally orthogonal to developing off-chain transaction technologies by the way. I'm for instance very optimistic about Open Transactions. But I still want to be able to transact on the blockchain daily. One thing doesn't rule out the other.

[piotr_n]

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

Please, don't be silly.
I'm sorry for your lose, but should I be bringing the deaths in my family as well? I've surely had some recently, but it's just not an argument for a bitcoin development board.

As for the wiki page, or pros/cons list - I've been there and I am now old enough to know that the only reason anyone would refer me to such a means, is if he wants to get rid of me.
So thanks, but I won't use it.

[caveden]

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

My sincere condolences to you and your family. I'd suggest avoiding places like this forum for a while, and instead watch out for yourself and your loved ones.

[justusranvier]

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.

That is also a conflict of interests.

[piotr_n]

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.

That is also a conflict of interests.

Well, feel free to disclose your motives.
I've already stated it that I own some mining shares, so I have an obvious incentive to keep the limit on.
Though, which you probably won't believe, my main motivation comes from a sincere care about this fine project and its future, and not from the few extra percent benefits of my mining operations.

[conv3rsion]

This thread is a complete rehash of months of debate. I can't wait until we can get past this issue. I truly hope that the efforts here http://utxo.tumblr.com/ are successful, because helping scalability means helping Bitcoin and this might the most important work in the history of the currency.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

Please, don't be silly.
I'm sorry for your lose, but should I be bringing the deaths in my family as well? I've surely had some recently, but it's just not an argument for a bitcoin development board.

Now you are just being a rude son of a bitch (not a troll).

Step down with your tone or GTFO, motherfucker. I will not be having a discussion with such a bastard.

And I mean, seriously - no trolling.

[piotr_n]

Now you are just being a rude son of a bitch (not a troll).

I would have been rude if I was lying to have someone really close to me died recently.
But since it really happened, and you feel sorry for Gavin, but not at all for me and my mom, then I can only tell you back: fuck you!
Still, the code does not care about who died and someone has to take the stake and develop it further in the right direction.