Small blocks, middle blocks or big blocks?

[Wind_FURY]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

[1713555404]

1713555404

[ðºÞæ]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

For some fees matter, 10k times more expensive is not something many can accept. Harsh economic reality.
https://sv.coin.dance/block

s

[franky1]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

^ proof that most core fanboys dont want bitcoin to be useful. and prefer people to go use other networks for transacting (facepalm)

[DooMAD]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

For some fees matter, 10k times more expensive is not something many can accept.

You say that not many can accept it, but surely the fact that the cheaper chain still doesn't handle as many transactions as this one means there are other factors to consider?  I personally don't understand why people are in such a hurry to imitate the chains that have empirically fewer users.

Plus, if more people actually used the cheaper chains, they likely wouldn't be as cheap as they currently are.   

[ðºÞæ]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

For some fees matter, 10k times more expensive is not something many can accept.

You say that not many can accept it, but surely the fact that the cheaper chain still doesn't handle as many transactions as this one means there are other factors to consider?  I personally don't understand why people are in such a hurry to imitate the chains that have empirically fewer users.

Plus, if more people actually used the cheaper chains, they likely wouldn't be as cheap as they currently are.  

There is a thing called scaling, it does wonders.
It translates like this:
If a gravel road is to crowed you make it wider and engineer the surface (tarmac it), not keep the pot-hole gravel road and build rail tracks next to it where users commute with handcars.

BTC has been developed to an unworkable coin on purpose, especially now as the SEC dealt the final blow to LN as every users must buy license and comply with AML/KYC (unless routing is not offered) and also ever user must scan ID.
"Set in stone" on the blockchain.
https://bico.media/1f8e0c5f47b470f3df0f06f3d2939adccc1f2b7dafa0b4a32a69663cda2c6760.pdf


Most core fanatics just exit scam now al-la Charlie Lee. A few newb's get burned along the way.

[franky1]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

For some fees matter, 10k times more expensive is not something many can accept.

You say that not many can accept it, but surely the fact that the cheaper chain still doesn't handle as many transactions as this one means there are other factors to consider?  I personally don't understand why people are in such a hurry to imitate the chains that have empirically fewer users.

Plus, if more people actually used the cheaper chains, they likely wouldn't be as cheap as they currently are.  

lesson one: emphasis its important lesson.
whether a altcoin can handle 5ktx or 50ktx it wont get 5k-50k if that coin has no merchant use.
so altcoins have more potential (buffer) but not utilising it due to not having the merchant adoption.

however a certain group of core devs and their fanboys see bitcoin as having the merchant approval, but then trying to stifle bitcoins utility for those merchants by way of fee wars, limiting transaction throughput and promoting that if people dont like those stifling tactics they can just go use another network.

i personally do not understand why anyone who pretends to be a bitcoin(actually they are just core fans but afraid to admit it) fan are in such a hurry to ruin bitcoins utility to promote other networks of less security

[xWolfx]

I agree with something here. The world is simple, is the people who make it complicated.

Why not try to improve the Blockchain technology and spend that time inside that quest in something that can for sure change the world in the future than trying to create something new over one thing that already has years in the market and can be improved.

That is the whole point of it. People coming together to not only care about the financial aspect but to look at the whole picture and seek improvement for the human kind in all possible ways this technology could be implemented.

[DooMAD]

lesson one: emphasis its important lesson.
whether a altcoin can handle 5ktx or 50ktx it wont get 5k-50k if that coin has no merchant use.
so altcoins have more potential (buffer) but not utilising it due to not having the merchant adoption.

however a certain group of core devs and their fanboys see bitcoin as having the merchant approval, but then trying to stifle bitcoins utility for those merchants by way of fee wars, limiting transaction throughput and promoting that if people dont like those stifling tactics they can just go use another network.

Wrong as usual.  Lesson one is that those securing the chain decide what Bitcoin is.  You need to learn that before you can even attempt to lecture on anything else.  But chances are, you never will wrap your feeble little mind around it.  When both non-mining full nodes and miners begin to consider more throughput, perhaps at that point, things might change in a way you approve of.  Until then, suck it.  You are wholly impotent and your views are barely represented on this network.  You lack support for even the most miniscule of changes you'd like to see.

But by all means keep calling those securing the chain "fanboys" and "sheep".  I'm sure that's going to win them over to your way of thinking.  

We've had two years for people to decide that they don't like the direction Bitcoin is going in and leave the network in favour of one that functions in the way you'd like Bitcoin to work.  How many more years do you think it's going to take before it dawns on you that you are wrong?  Or are you just going to keep repeating your baseless scaremongering forever, even when it's abundantly clear that users are not fleeing en-masse to the coins with greater throughput (and weaker literally-everything-else)?

I used to argue that users would naturally follow the coin with the lowest fees.  You know what happened?  Reality proved me wrong and I chose to learn something from that. 

When will you learn?  (Obviously that's a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly "never".)

[DooMAD]

lesson one: emphasis its important lesson.
whether a altcoin can handle 5ktx or 50ktx it wont get 5k-50k if that coin has no merchant use.
so altcoins have more potential (buffer) but not utilising it due to not having the merchant adoption.

however a certain group of core devs and their fanboys see bitcoin as having the merchant approval, but then trying to stifle bitcoins utility for those merchants by way of fee wars, limiting transaction throughput and promoting that if people dont like those stifling tactics they can just go use another network.

Wrong as usual.  Lesson one is that those securing the chain decide what Bitcoin is.  You need to learn that before you can even attempt to lecture on anything else.  But chances are, you never will wrap your feeble little mind around it. 

Oh I see. The old if you give us what we want first, then we will give you what you want later - really - promise - tee hee - you fell for it, you are so downright gullible.

That?

There's no bargaining involved.  People are simply running code to enforce the rules they want to see enforced.  You spouting whatever nonsense you are on an internet forum is not changing that.  If you think you can do better, where's the repository for your client?  How many users does it have?  Who's your special friend who apparently makes all the decisions?  Are they the lead dev?

[muratsink]

I'm worried, if a large BSV block can't avoid ddos ​​attacks on the network. I know.  each block can create 36MB.  but a 1MB block is safer from network risk.  anyone can make a block with a limit of 1MB.  if more than 1MB, then invalid.  this maximum limit for :
1. maintaining consensus
2. avoiding decentralization of pool
3. making lots of full nodes

[franky1]

doomad poking the bear again with completely narrow visioned mindset. ill bite
it seems your idea of consensus and unity and community and proposals is, if you dont like it go find another coin.

however instead of finding another coin to just let core do as they please to bitcoin. many people will stay with the network and highlight the flaws that core implement and continue to try to ensure core dont just do as they please all the time.

being on the network with 99% core node control does not mean 99% core adoration. it just means lack of choice to remain on network without using undergraded/downgraded nodes

i know i know you would love it if those that despise core would just f**k off.. but thats where your failure to understand what blockchains and the solution to byzantine generals theory is all about.. again i have been telling you for months go learn it

diversity, community, consensus and the byzantine generals solution has nothing at all to do with "if you dont like it f**K off"
so stop defaulting to that rhetoric as your answer to what happens when core wants consensus for something. stop trying to promote that you applaud cores attempts at apartheid to get what they want, as all it is doing is showing you have no understanding or care for blockchains, bitcoin. and all you want to do is fanboy up to CORE

[squatter]

You don't get it. Who cares what mining pools want? The fee market is not some sort of gift to miners, .......

because it ensures a continuing honest mining incentive.

mining incentive... wait. but you said you dont care about miners incentive

I don't care what miners want. I certainly care whether the network sustains the rational mining incentive (block rewards) built into the original design. It's simple to see that absent set mandatory fees, demand for block space needs to outpace supply for fees to be nonzero -- and certainly for fee revenue to replace the original 50 BTC per block subsidy. We need to put money on the table for miners to secure the chain. Hence the part of the quote that you removed:

The fee market is not some sort of gift to miners, any more than the original block subsidy was.

If block size always has a "buffer" beyond demand, everyone will pay ~zero. Why would anyone pay when there is free space?

In your vision, block rewards will eventually diminish to nothing and the entire mining incentive will cease to exist. That would make for an incredibly useless and insecure Bitcoin. No thanks.

firstly, fee's have nothing to do with security. paying extra does not make your tx any more valid/rule following than any other tx.

if pools decide to make blocks that dont fit the rules. they dont get archived by nodes. thus pools cant really break rules anyway. all a pool can do is choose which tx's to collate

As Satoshi once said, unconfirmed transactions are second class citizens. As he also once said, Bitcoin's design is such that fees are to fully replace the block subsidy. So if you want your transaction confirmed, you should pay a fee instead of assuming miners will collate your transaction into a block for free.

Miners aren't offering charity. If the block subsidy didn't exist now, miners would drop off the network en masse. In a couple more halvings, the block subsidy will be a small fraction of the current reward. Do you expect miners to secure the chain for less and less revenue, and eventually nothing? Are you okay with a situation where hash rate is spiraling downward, generations old hardware can be used to reorg the chain and attack the network, etc.?

in my vision a fee war proposing $20/tx now is stupid. we dont need to worry about fee's for decades. so concentrate on adoption now and actual bitcoin utility and let the fee's play out in decades.

85% of Bitcoin's supply has already been mined. In five years, the block subsidy will drop to a mere 6.25% of the original reward. Why do you assume we have decades to wait before dealing with this?

[DooMAD]

Who's your special friend who apparently makes all the decisions? 

They are not my special friend, why do you always make up nonsense for?

There is only one person who can have code for the project.

Then perhaps an explanation to elucidate the situation would clear things up?  Start at the beginning.  Which project are you referring to?  And where can I view this code?  I get that your forum persona is trying to come across as mysterious and edgy, but it's not helpful when trying to have an open discussion.  If there's some code, let's see it and go from there.

[DooMAD]

satoshi < gavin < next person in line

you like or enjoy clues?

I prefer code and transparency.  I don't see how you're going to attract many users if you can't even tell us anything about it.

[franky1]

I don't care what miners want.
....
So if you want your transaction confirmed, you should pay a fee instead of assuming miners will collate your transaction into a block for free.

Miners aren't offering charity. If the block subsidy didn't exist now, miners would drop off the network en masse

again you say you dont care what they want.. then explain if something aint done to satisfy pools they will react.. seems you do care.

but here is some economics your not really understanding.
imagine public transport. planes, trains and buses.
if the seats are empty the transport system DOES NOT give away free tickets/seats.
they dont charge a fe only when seats are full

the transport system doesnt need to remove seats to incentivise people to sit on seats.
all the transport system needs to do is charge a fee for every seat. but a fee people are HAPPY to pay

again no free tickets/seats. just not excessively priced seats due to removing seats to make it appear like a premuim scarce resource.

those fools that think making everything a scarce resource is the answer to 'value' are dumber than a dog owner thinking he can sell his dogs bowel product simply because his dog will only do a couple thousand produces in its lifetime.

if miners start to see the reward/$ conversion has not offset the reward halving, whereby in many decades the fee:reward ratio flips. then POOLS without needing to stifle block sizes can just stop collating free transactions and only accept transactions of X fee.. all without devs needing to pretend they are clever economists(because they are not)

any way. i dare you to go into ur town/city centre. wait for a public bus thats completely empty. and under your own economic theory, try to get on the bus for free because you think the only reason people pay to get on a bus is if its crowded. you wil learn that paying for something is not always about scarcity/limited resource

[Wind_FURY]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

^ proof that most core fanboys dont want bitcoin to be useful. and prefer people to go use other networks for transacting (facepalm)

Your reply is proof that big blockers don't care about the effects of big blocks on the network, or don't understand how Bitcoin works, OR they believe can go around the laws of physics. HAHA, and I'm the stupid one?

[franky1]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

^ proof that most core fanboys dont want bitcoin to be useful. and prefer people to go use other networks for transacting (facepalm)

Your reply is proof that big blockers don't care about the effects of big blocks on the network, or don't understand how Bitcoin works, OR they believe can go around the laws of physics. HAHA, and I'm the stupid one?

your reply is proof you only read the reddit scripts of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" fud
my opinion is that the debate is not about actually having a blocks completely filled at gigabyte per block levels. because that wont be the case.
my opinion is that increasing the BUFFER to allow more transaction throughput is not the only way to achieve things.
increasing the buffer does not have to be a big jump especially not a 1mb legacy to 1gb legacy.. thats just stupid fear tactics

there are things like removing the witness scale factor wishy washy code. that way the 4mb block space can actually b a true 4mb blockspace

there is reducing the txsigop limit to reduce bloated transactions using up the space. thus instead of 5tx of bloat using up the limit. it would allow thousands of transactions through

theres including a fee formulae to punish the regular spammers without overcharging the infreqeunt users to the same amount. thus changing users habits.

all while promoting bitcoin network utility. rather than promoting to deburden bitcoin of utility to promote other networks

[Wind_FURY]

Yes, for those people, there's altcoins. Less fees, and faster transactions. Bitcoin doesn't have to be that. Bitcoin is, and that's all that matters.

^ proof that most core fanboys dont want bitcoin to be useful. and prefer people to go use other networks for transacting (facepalm)

Your reply is proof that big blockers don't care about the effects of big blocks on the network, or don't understand how Bitcoin works, OR they believe can go around the laws of physics. HAHA, and I'm the stupid one?

your reply is proof you only read the reddit scripts of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" fud

No, never. My debate was never about "gigabyte blocks by midnight". Although the big blockers, like you, believe that the network can do a hard fork after hard fork to increase the block size as needed because Moore's Law, correct?

My debate is larger blocks demand better bandwidth, and latency to prevent node centralization. Plus big blockers ignore externalities.

[DooMAD]

your reply is proof you only read the reddit scripts of "gigabyte blocks by midnight" fud

Your reply is a desperate attempt to sidestep the facts that:

a) You have no code for half the things you want to implement
b) Your ideas have little support
c) Many users see you as a discredited troll
d) You think you can be part of a network while also being in a minority that runs code which is incompatible with the code the majority are running (and yet still believe you're in a position to tell us how consensus works)

[franky1]

No, never. My debate was never about "gigabyte blocks by midnight". Although the big blockers, like you, believe that the network can do a hard fork after hard fork to increase the block size as needed because Moore's Law, correct?

My debate is larger blocks demand better bandwidth, and latency to prevent node centralization. Plus big blockers ignore externalities.

"big blockers" typical echo chamber buzzword from a certain group. if you realised that increasing the transaction throughput can be alot more nuanced than just 'big blocks'. then you would understand more about methods of scaling bitcoin without reverting to the standard claptrap rhetoric of the echo chamber you subscribe to that just wants to propaganda one method

you dont need hard for after hard fork to increase blocksize/transaction throughput. you may have learned this if you were not reading the standard echo chambers and using the standard buzzwords of a certain group. this is why i ave kept saying to do some independent research as you are showing all the signs of being in that propaganda group.

better bandwidth? we are not in dialup era..
56kbit=4.2mbyte/10min
block header plus tx data is way less than 4mb

better latency? (dictionary: delay before transfer)
the only latency issue is mainly being told several different dataset formats other nodes want: stripped, filtered, neutrino and others. a full node should just send out the real full data other full nodes need. having a bunch of nodes that dont archive full data and cant relay full data but still foolishly be classed as 'full nodes' is the thing that will cause more centralisation than anything.

having nodes that dont hold signatures. or only hold prunned data cuts down the amount of real full syncable data. having these nodes connecting to full nodes become leachers while not being part of the main relay operation of the network.
code CAN be made to identify and classify these leacher nodes better and ensure priority 'latency' operations and bandwidth is given to full nodes rather than the leacher nodes.
EG if your node can handle 100 connections then you can have a 80/20 split of full/leacher
EG if your node can handle 10 connections then you can have a 8/2 split of full/leacher

there are many many ways that are not just the 'gigabyte by midnight' rhetoric

its like the tx fee's code can be made to not just treat every tx to the same ~premium, but make spammers pay different than infrequent users. thus making people care/change habits and actually understand bitcoin more