Small blocks, middle blocks or big blocks?

[alevlaslo]

guys, stop swearing, we need all three types of bitcoins at the same time: small blocks BTC, medium blocks BCH and large blocks BSV

[1714977756]

1714977756

[1714977756]

1714977756

[1714977756]

1714977756

[Haunebu]

We only need the king here since the forks are only splitting the community into different directions and making the crypto world more complicated than it already is. Bitcoin is continuously being improved thanks to LN development, Segwit adoption etc which is why the small block issue is not such a big deal.

[franky1]

the foolish mindset is that the propaganda machine loves to advertise this:
btc = 1mb legacy small blocks forever
alt= gigabyte blocks

the reasonable and common sense is where things should go back to what btc was 2009-2015 (incremental growth)
2009 0.25
2013 0.5
2014 0.75
2015 1mb
future <incremental growth>

the only reason btc halted at 1mb legacy is to force a utility limitation of a legacy 2in-2out tx of only allowing under 3000tx a block. while allowing slightly more LN gateway/ramp(segwit) tx's
yet even this is a limited amount of how many LN open/close sessions can occur.
all in an attempt to deburden bitcoin of actual bitcoin utility and make people move to other networks of alts/pegged tokens

[Red-Apple]

we only have and need one bitcoin and that is the bitcoin that we already see everywhere. anything else with different names such as bitcoin-cash, bitcoin-satoshi-vision, bitcoin-gold, bitcoin-silver, bitcoin-unlimited,... and about 100 more are useless altcoins that were created for pump and  dumping. if you check their blockchain you can obviously see that nobody is even using them as their blocks barely contain more than 5 transactions!

if you want to argue about "bitcoin" blockchain then it is a different discussion and you need to remove the altcoins from your topic.

[DooMAD]

I find this graph particularly telling in terms of what difference the maximum size of blocks actually makes:



Notice how, despite supporting larger blocks, the fork coins still aren't growing their overall blockchain size as quickly as Bitcoin is.  Those other coins could set their blocks to 1 GB per block, but it wouldn't make any difference in practice if the demand isn't there.  But if Bitcoin increases the size of its blocks, even a little, people are likely to use that additional space and the overall size of the blockchain could grow even faster than it currently is.  That's why non-mining full nodes on this chain are being cautious and not permitting larger increases.

[alevlaslo]

bitcoin gave itself to the mercy of altcoins because at that time there was neither BCH nor BSV

[ðºÞæ]

Big Block



A single Bitcoin Cash address is responsible for nearly 50% of the network’s transactions in the past month
https://www.theblockcrypto.com/category/cryptocurrency/

[nutildah]

This guy (OP) likes to post the same comment and pictures in 3 different threads at the same time. That's why his words about swearing are out of context. I really think he just copy/pastes the same stuff in multiple threads because he doesn't actually a whole lot to say. Either that or he's a spambot.

He posts the same misinformative nonsense in thread after thread.

We get it, OP. You hate bitcoin. That's fine, just take into consideration that this forum probably isn't for you.

[alevlaslo]

ETH was grew not because Vitalik is a genius, but because it is the least of evils for migration, Vitalik looks the most adequate. And the proportion of ETH was always like xrp and ltc average, then so be it then. What do you think to what will continue the flow of domination?

[Herbert2020]

From BTC community perspective, both BCH and BSV block size are big.
From BCH and BSV perspective, BTC block size is too small tiny.

and from a realistic perspective bitcoin produces 1.2 MB blocks while BCH produces 1 KB blocks and BSV 500 byte blocks so bitcoin does have bigger blocks

ETH was grew not because Vitalik is a genius, but because it is the least of evils for migration, Vitalik looks the most adequate. And the proportion of ETH was always like xrp and ltc average, then so be it then. What do you think to what will continue the flow of domination?

centralized coins always get pumped better and since ETH is not just a token people invest but also a platform that thousands of scammers create easy tokens on to sell to newbies, the price of it grows even more and as ICOs die it also dies with them.

[BitUsher]

4 MB of weight that Bitcoin has is a very large block.

[BitUsher]

ETH was grew not because Vitalik is a genius, but because it is the least of evils for migration, Vitalik looks the most adequate.

Vitalik is a very competent con artist

Ethereum is a premined scam.


1)   Vitalik and many others in the Ethereum space are known scammers. Vitalik is not an idiot thus he should have known better than pitch something as ridiculous as quantum mining to potential investors. This is a snake oil salesman pitching technical nonsense  to the credulous.
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/08/17/gregory-maxwell-vitalik-buterin-ran-quantum-computer-scam/

https://archive.fo/VZbPs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkUpZkeqhF4


2) ETH is an illegal security according to the Howey test with a premine of 72 million eths. They purposely misled investors by suggesting merely 12 million gifted premine ignoring the 60 million they sold. Misleading total supply graphs in their prospectus.

3) Vitalik and many other have been falsely representing Ethereum and misleading others over and over again. example - pitching turing completeness as the valuable aspect of ETh , now pivoting away from that and saying it was never about turing completeness but "rich statefulness"

4) Ethereum is a pointless project that will lead to no efficiency because there is no censorship risk in code execution. If a project has no hope of ever creating an efficiency(like bitcoin has found with regulatory arbitrage) than every company and project will ultimately fail in its ecosystem. Are you trying to suggest that someday in the future there will be censorship risk in code execution? If not than what purpose does Ethereum solve if it comes with a horrible tradeoff of an extremely large attack surface and huge scaling problems?
5) Advertising immutability and unstoppable contracts that were than immediately reversed with multiple hard forks.

6)   For goodness sake the inflation distribution rate or final algo is not even defined and people are investing in this. This is insane and basically amounts to faith in vitalik and his team, while at the same time newbs are misled into believing eth is decentralized.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUUVlatCvp0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCiHTJRbIf4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgFXqVpGDNg


https://medium.com/startup-grind/i-was-wrong-about-ethereum-804c9a906d36


https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereumfraud/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxtVLjCxPDU

[BitUsher]

If the circumstances are right, I can see a modest blocksize [2 meg] in 6 to 18 months, to be able to be put back to the miners to signal for; but other than those circumstances, I do not see a blocksize increase possible anytime soon otherwise at this time.

If the limit is 4million units of weight or 4MB or weight than you are speaking of a block size reduction , not increase. Perhaps you mean 8MB of weight like we saw in segwit2x. This is not needed anytime soon as we are only using at most 50% of segwit onchain capacity now https://segwit.space/

Other altcoins can continue to raise their block limits to absurd levels for marketing reasons ... as we can see from almost empty blocks , few are buying their propaganda

[franky1]

Those other coins could set their blocks to 1 GB per block, but it wouldn't make any difference in practice if the demand isn't there.  But if Bitcoin increases the size of its blocks, even a little, people are likely to use that additional space and the overall size of the blockchain could grow even faster than it currently is.  That's why non-mining full nodes on this chain are being cautious and not permitting larger increases.

and thats the point
using fear of gigabyte blocks to suggest there actually would be gigabyte blocks was the empty argument
when bitcoin went from 0.25mb to 0.5mb, then to 0.75mb and then to 1mb... it was not an instant jump. even with the availability, it was a curve of natural growth.

its like buying a computer with X ram
if you know the pc needs 2gb ram for the OS. you dont just buy a pc with 4gb ram knowing as soon as you install office and an antivirus your at a limit as soon as you open the tabs up.. you instead buy a PC with 8-16gb ram knowing that theres is available spare space(buffer) to allow for growth without having to instantly complain you hit the limit soon after.

core keeping legacy down but trying to promote the LN gateway tx format is not to inspire bitcoin utility growth/adoption. but purely to inspire not increasing bitcoin utility and infact decreasing bitcoin utility while trying to promote deburdening bitcoin network in favour for other networks

and dont rebut that 'non-mining full nodes on bitcoins network are being cautious and not permitting larger increases'.. as the foolish thing is those very same people allowed a contentious hard fork in summer 17, allowed hard drive bloat to increase, allowed new wishy washy code. yet non of which actually caused a increase allowance of legacy tx throughput.. thus that was not 'cautious' that was 'cunning'

and dont rebut that 'non-mining full nodes on bitcoins network are being cautious and not permitting larger increases'.. as the foolish notion that nodes are being economic majors and wanting to aid mining pools to earn more fee's by having a fee market.. when mining pools if they really wanted to earn more would only accept tx's of $1 and force users to pay more. but instead some pools throw any transactions in randomly and some do empty bocks which mean pools dont care about fee's

[DooMAD]

Those other coins could set their blocks to 1 GB per block, but it wouldn't make any difference in practice if the demand isn't there.  But if Bitcoin increases the size of its blocks, even a little, people are likely to use that additional space and the overall size of the blockchain could grow even faster than it currently is.  That's why non-mining full nodes on this chain are being cautious and not permitting larger increases.

and thats the point
using fear of gigabyte blocks to suggest there actually would be gigabyte blocks was the empty argument

No, it isn't the point at all.  The point is that no coin has proven the viability of larger blocks because those coins that supposedly have them are totally unable to fill them on a regular basis.  It doesn't matter if they can fill a large block once.  Or even a few times.  They have to do it consistently over a long period of time without losing nodecount before it proves that it can work.

[franky1]

Those other coins could set their blocks to 1 GB per block, but it wouldn't make any difference in practice if the demand isn't there.  But if Bitcoin increases the size of its blocks, even a little, people are likely to use that additional space and the overall size of the blockchain could grow even faster than it currently is.  That's why non-mining full nodes on this chain are being cautious and not permitting larger increases.

and thats the point
using fear of gigabyte blocks to suggest there actually would be gigabyte blocks was the empty argument

No, it isn't the point at all.  The point is that no coin has proven the viability of larger blocks because those coins that supposedly have them are totally unable to fill them on a regular basis.  It doesn't matter if they can fill a large block once.  Or even a few times.  They have to do it consistently over a long period of time without losing nodecount before it proves that it can work.

but that is the point. previous fear is increasing the blocks=instant fill=causing pain.
its better to have a buffer and allow progressive growth. rather then stiffling a limit to pressure people not to grow

node count does not = increase/decrease tx count. users just downgrade to lite wallets and transactions still flow.
the reason altcoins dont prosper is that they dont bother promoting their altcoins to merchants to give the altcoin actual utility.
but bitcoin is starting to deburden bitcoin of merchant use with its false propaganda that blockchains are bad, to try promoting alternative networks that dont use blockchains

[DooMAD]

node count does not = increase/decrease tx count. users just downgrade to lite wallets and transactions still flow.
the reason altcoins dont prosper is that they dont bother promoting their altcoins to merchants to give the altcoin actual utility.
but bitcoin is starting to deburden bitcoin of merchant use with its false propaganda that blockchains are bad

Blockchains need to be decentralised, or they're no better than a centralised database.  Centralised databases are bad. 

[alevlaslo]

there is no decentralization, 80% of mining takes place in China, bitcoin was created not for the sake of fighting with the government, but in order to prevent the emission in connection with the financial crisis of 2008

[BitUsher]

there is no decentralization, 80% of mining takes place in China,

This is false, ever since China cracked down on mining off of free hydro in China many ASICs left china. Look at the pool breakdown to get a rough idea.

Also the UASF/Segwit2x fight with these miners proved that the economic majority is really in charge.

bitcoin was created not for the sake of fighting with the government, but in order to prevent the emission in connection with the financial crisis of 2008

It was precisely government regulation and policies that led to this financial crisis. If you don't believe so than go ahead and try and get a government to approve a sovereign cryptocurrency that competes with their fiat and let me know how well you do. Just the banks, right? Governments should be interested in protecting their citizens wealth against these banks by allowing capital flight and safe harbor , right?

[franky1]

node count does not = increase/decrease tx count. users just downgrade to lite wallets and transactions still flow.
the reason altcoins dont prosper is that they dont bother promoting their altcoins to merchants to give the altcoin actual utility.
but bitcoin is starting to deburden bitcoin of merchant use with its false propaganda that blockchains are bad

Blockchains need to be decentralised, or they're no better than a centralised database.  Centralised databases are bad. 

2015 community was happy with 10k nodes where a few thousand were different brands.

the node count has NOT decreased. luke Jr says there are 100k nodes now.. so stop with the fud about node decrease
also
about centralisation.. back in 2015 community was happy with a mix of brands. but now the codebase is 99% core.. meaning though DISTRIBUTED.. the codebase is CENTRALISED

oh and if you want to pretend LN makes things better. things like neutrino for LN does the opposite.
but have a nice day