Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

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.

"Don't be silly" is simply not a proper way to reply to somebody whose a person in the family has recently died.

You must be a sick piece of bastard (or a psychopath) if you don't know that.

[1715002234]

1715002234

[1715002234]

1715002234

[1715002234]

1715002234

[1715002234]

1715002234

[piotr_n]

"Don't be silly" is simply not a proper way to reply to somebody whose a person in the family has recently died.

It is, if it was an answer to an argument/excuse on an arbitrary change of the bitcoin protocol.
I understand how broken you can be at such moments, but bringing it as an argument on whether we should increase a block size, or not... Please.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

"Don't be silly" is simply not a proper way to reply to somebody whose a person in the family has recently died.

It is, if it was an answer to an argument/excuse on changing the bitcoin protocol.
I understand how broken you can be at such moments, but bringing it as an argument on whether we should increase a block size, or not... Please.

Hey, piotr_n, I have prepared something for you:

My mother has died.

Don't be silly. She was a bitch anyway.

My sister has been raped by a gang of 40 men.

Raped ? Don't be silly, everybody knows she fucked everybody around. She liked it and she wanted it.

My dog was killed by my schizophrenic neighbour.

Don't be silly, I know your neighbour and he is a cool person ! I am sure that it was your dog that was mad.

Somebody burned my car at the night !

Don't be silly, that car was crap anyway.

Do you like it ?

[piotr_n]

Do you like it ?

man i really don't care about your trolling.
really.
you might even write a poem for me, and trust me: I wont read it

[tvbcof]

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.

The only things I've ever been interested in are ways to allow scalability since that bothered me about Bitcoin within seconds of understanding the basics of the network and the design of it's decentralization.

• 'http://bakcoin.org' I abandoned, but it was envisioned to support 'best-of-breed' exchange currencies and thus, hopefully, Bitcoin.
• 'http://bitcoin-legacy.org' is arguably Bitcoin.  (Oh, I need to make a slight correction there...done.)
• 'http://paracoin.org' is Bitcoin by design...until Bitcoin 'fails' at least.

I've never held any alternate crypto-currencies or had much interest in them since none that I know of focus on real scaling issues.  I have given BTC to friend and encouraged them to knock themselves out playing with alternates in the hopes that some good ideas and code spring from them, but generally it's not worth my time to play with them.

The idea of a 'debt based' system which can move 'debt' to where it is needed is a powerful one and very interesting.  But Ripple is is closed source and centralized from the get-go which is a non-starter for me.  It's a completely opposite beast than Bitcoin (in my mind), but that is fine and actually a good thing.

Open Transactions seems to rock, and is exactly the class of solution I see as being the best hope for Bitcoin in any capacity where it has a realistic chance of being worth a shit (where 'worth' is not meant to be taken as in monetary terms.)

  edit: url fix

[conv3rsion]

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.

You are an asshole. Gavin was offering a way for people who actually care about this issue to present the various arguments in a useful way AND giving a reason why he can't do it right now. It wasn't an excuse, it was Gavin being his usual pragmatic self.

---------------------

Gavin my thoughts are with you and your family.

[paraipan]

...

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

Sorry for your loss Gavin. The most prudent course of action would be you leave development for a while and recover.

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

Point us in the right direction, don't be shy.


@ShadowOfHarbringer please control your tone too, is obvious piotr_n wants to keep this thread on topic like you do.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Do you like it ?

man i really don't care about your trolling.

This has nothing to do with trolling.
I am making a pure ad hominem argument that you are a very impolite person and also an imbecile with stupid arguments so nobody should listen to anything you have to say.
Still on topic.

@ShadowOfHarbringer please control your tone too, is obvious piotr_n wants to keep this thread on topic like you do.

Sorry for that, I usually lose my control when somebody is an über-asshole.

He deserved it anyway.

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

By the way, my condolences.

[solex]

I actually was under the impression that we are libertarians here and we should push for any solution that decreases centralization.

No block size limit = free market decides the proper size

You mean the 3 people controlling the pools that have the majority of hashing power control the blocksize.

Exactly like these 3 people?
So 3 people have been controlling the block size ever since the 1MB limit was introduced.  Now it all becomes clear!

[piotr_n]

You are an asshole. Gavin was offering a way for people who actually care about this issue to present the various arguments in a useful way AND giving a reason why he can't do it right now. It wasn't an excuse, it was Gavin being his usual pragmatic self.

I am an asshole, because Gavin, after being pointed out that his neutrality in the matter is at least questionable brought up an argument of his family member passing away, and I dared to call it silly?

Well, if such a behavior falls under a definition of being an asshole, then maybe I am one - whatever.
But it still doesn't change the fact, that in my opinion there is something seriously wrong with the development of this project.
While the community expects the dev team to solve the scalability problem, the lead developer just makes an announcement that he already made the decisions along with all the other important people from the community and they decided that instead of addressing the scalability issue, while there is still time, they are only going to make it worse, and they will do it as soon as possible. And before it happens, they are also going to lobby against implementing any alternative ways of addressing this issue... hell, they are going to pretend that it isn't even possible to solve it otherwise.

Thank you though for giving me the opportunity to present the various arguments, even though by your definition I obviously belong to the ones who don't care 

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

While the community expects the dev team to solve the scalability problem, the lead developer just makes an announcement that he already made the decisions along with all the other important people from the community and they decided that instead of addressing the scalability issue, while there is still time, they are only going to make it worse, and they will do it as soon as possible.

Wait a moment.

So what are the OTHER safe & reliable methods of "addressing scalability issue" without increasing the block size ?

What are the other propositions ? And I mean ones that do not require re-writing whole protocol from scratch, by the way.

If you are criticizing this way, you need to provide **an alternative**.

[piotr_n]

So what are the OTHER safe & reliable methods of "addressing scalability issue" without increasing the block size ?

Obviously. Read through this topic carefully, instead of just barking around like a rabid chihuahua, and you will find at least a few good ideas.
But they won't get a chance to really develop and built the infrastructure, as long as the transactions are free. So forcing transactions to stay free is probably the best strategy to kill these so needed innovations; and I am old enough to suspect that it might not be a coincidence, but an agenda at work.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

So what are the OTHER safe & reliable methods of "addressing scalability issue" without increasing the block size ?

Obviously. Read through this topic carefully, instead of just barking around like a rabid chihuahua, and you will find at least a few good ideas.
But they won't get a chance to really develop and built the infrastructure, as long as the transactions are free. So forcing transactions to stay free is probably the best strategy to kill these so needed innovations.

1. I don't really have time to go through the whole topic - sorry. So please tell me which of these propositions you think should replace the increase of block size.

2. Transactions are supposed to be free - that is the foundation of Bitcoin. That is how Satoshi envisioned it. He also said very clearly that the block size limit is a temporary measure to protect the network from DDoS.

The way i see things is that you want do a hard fork and completely change the basics of Bitcoin instead of doing the thing that is natural and already designed by Satoshi - increasing the block size. And i think that is one hell of a dumb idea.

Why create a new untested solution when we already have a solution ?

[piotr_n]

You're talking bullshit, man. Transaction fees are at the very core of the bitcoin protocol, so don't tell me that bitcoin was designed with free transactions in mind.
If you make the transactions free forever and this will centralized the infrastructure - how will it be different from what a paypal is today?
How are you going to prevent people running huge bitcoin nodes from getting arrested in Spain, or just killed without a trial in Pakistan, by US authorities or a different mafia?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

You're talking bullshit, man. Transaction fees are at the very core of the bitcoin protocol, so don't tell me that bitcoin was designed with free transactions in mind.

You don't even understand what I am talking about and you apparently know shit about the protocol.

Obviously, transactions are CURRENTLY free only for "old" coins that haven't been moved in a long time and only until there is a block reward. When the block reward stops 100 years from now, transaction fees will be the only thing that keeps mining profitable - so there will be no free transactions anymore.

If you make the transactions free forever

And how do you make transactions free forever with today's Bitcoin protocol ? That is impossible and that is NOT what i meant.

and this will centralized the infrastructure - how will it be different from what a paypal is today?

Just how did you come to the conclusion that free transactions = centralized infrastructure ?

How are you going to prevent people running huge bitcoin nodes to get arrested in Spain, or just killed without a trial in Pakistan, by US authorities?

Arguments:
- Huge nodes can be run on I2P and perhaps TOR.
- Huge nodes can be run on Mesh networks.
- If Bitcoin becomes really mainstream, huge nodes will be run by companies/corporations, academies, governments

Are you assuming that Bitcoin will be a geek - only currency forever ? If that is so, then centralization will not be a problem, because there will not be any scalability problem.

Logically:
- If Bitcoin does not become mainstream => Scalability is not a problem anyway (little amount of transactions = low bandwidth/storage requirements)
- If Bitcoin becomes mainstream => scalability is not a problem, because governments, companies & academies will be running big nodes.

So your logic is fatally flawed.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Actually, one more argument:

- Huge, full Bitcoin nodes can be run on dedicated servers in different countries. The servers are now extremely cheap and will be getting cheaper every year.

[amincd]

You're talking bullshit, man. Transaction fees are at the very core of the bitcoin protocol, so don't tell me that bitcoin was designed with free transactions in mind.
If you make the transactions free forever and this will centralized the infrastructure - how will it be different from what a paypal is today?
How are you going to prevent people running huge bitcoin nodes from getting arrested in Spain, or just killed without a trial in Pakistan, by US authorities or a different mafia?

He means almost free.

Regarding centralization: the advantage Bitcoin has is that the blockchain is open source. This significantly reduces the costs of running the transaction database, since there is no need to prevent unauthorized access, no need for backups, no need for 99.99% uptime, and readily available mirrored databases to restore from in case there is a server failure. What this means is that the cost of running a node will never be that high, no matter how many transactions are processed a second, and there will always be many nodes active.

In other words, if high bandwidth is the only requirement of running a full node, there won't be a shortage of full nodes.

[piotr_n]

In other words, if high bandwidth is the only requirement of running a full node, there won't be a shortage of full nodes.

So  what if one day the requirement becomes "you must have a government issued license to run a full node"?

You don't think that the governments would never do it to bitcoin, if they could, do you?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

In other words, if high bandwidth is the only requirement of running a full node, there won't be a shortage of full nodes.

So  what if one day the requirement becomes "you must have a government issued license to run a full node"?

Then we will run nodes:
- On I2P, TOR
- On Mesh networks
- On dedicated servers in countries that don't care about U.S. law
- In rented apartments/basements with fast internet connections in different countries

Possibilities are endless.

You don't think that the governments would never do it to bitcoin, if they could, do you?

Of course they would... if they could.
For now, they cannot even stop Bittorrent/P2P and you expect them to stop Bitcoin ? Please...

[piotr_n]

For now, they cannot even stop Bittorrent/P2P and you expect them to stop Bitcoin ?

Only because running a bittorrent client does not require you do own a data center.
But whoever had to have a data-center and was found supporting a P2P sharing, has likely been shut down already or will be shut down in a near future.
Not to mention that they even go after the poor people, just to make punishing them as an example to others.

No reason to assume that the same thing would not happen to bitcoin, if we let it happen by centralizing the infrastructure.
And the reason is always the same: they want to steal your money, though to make it sound right, they call it either a tax or a copyright fee.