Bitcoin Forum
September 17, 2019, 10:24:26 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Small, middle or big?
Small - 8 (42.1%)
Middle - 3 (15.8%)
Big - 8 (42.1%)
Total Voters: 16

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Small blocks, middle blocks or big blocks?  (Read 767 times)
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 812


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 10, 2019, 07:24:10 AM
 #61

The paper specifically discusses miners creating set minimum fee per tx and why that cannot work , a point you keep ignoring
well you go treat that paper as your bible, and ill use my own research and stats and experience as the formation of what i will continue to go by.

by the way, that paper has lots of if's and assumptions too. so take it with a grain of salt.
just because someone puts a fancy title page and calls it a 'paper' doesnt mean its well researched

transactions having a fee does not guarantee acceptance in a block
transactions having a fee+x does not guarantee acceptance in a block before a transaction thats just fee-x
pools are free to choose a transaction to include for any reason they please. so fe's and blocksize are not things the network should mess with because it doesnt help/coerce a pool into doing what a network wants.

again a pool could develop its own fee rationale and cause users to adapt.
EG pools could stop accepting segwit transactions unless they pay the same price a legacy tx pays
EG pools could stop accepting legacy transactions priced at a 4x segwit comparative and only accept legacy tx's with cheap fees at a 1:1 comparative

pools can decide to ignore certain transaction formats like LN CLTV's

you and your papers assumptions that pools automatically will grab the highest tx and aim to fill blocks is the biggest empty assumption of all

Funny , people always seem to forget the miners control the fees structure.
Miners could raise the price of transacting in segwit alone,
so it compensated them for the lost transactions revenue stolen by LN from the normal onchain fees.
That would be some cosmic humor.  Cheesy


How? By flooding the mempool? Cool

Quote

LN offchain fees would be higher than BTC onchain fees in such a scenario.    Smiley
Flaws created by using a soft fork instead of a hard fork.   Tongue
Cough Cough, I mean Features.  Cheesy


That doesn't make sense. In that "scenario", blocks would be empty, and Lightning would be in-demand to its maximum limit.

Quote

FYI:
So as a miner, I know a segwit address allows say 200 extra transactions offchain in LN,
so I automatically charge 200X more for segwit transactions than a normal transaction to compensate.
Well, I bet no one saw that one coming.   Wink


You assume ALL miners will be cooperating together to undermine the system. But if that happens, then Bitcoin has failed.


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
ðºÞæ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 287


Bitcoin © Maximalist


View Profile
May 10, 2019, 08:50:35 AM
 #62

Size does matter

Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 812


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 11, 2019, 08:25:07 AM
 #63

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. Cool


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
ðºÞæ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 287


Bitcoin © Maximalist


View Profile
May 11, 2019, 10:29:26 AM
 #64

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. Cool

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

s

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1462



View Profile
May 11, 2019, 11:08:34 AM
 #65

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. Cool

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 11, 2019, 12:32:54 PM
 #66

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. Cool

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 287


Bitcoin © Maximalist


View Profile
May 11, 2019, 02:13:36 PM
 #67

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. Cool

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1462



View Profile
May 11, 2019, 02:29:43 PM
 #68

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. Cool

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
xWolfx
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 20


View Profile
May 11, 2019, 02:50:30 PM
 #69

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.
Khaos77
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 55

Flag Day ☺


View Profile
May 11, 2019, 10:23:28 PM
 #70

The paper specifically discusses miners creating set minimum fee per tx and why that cannot work , a point you keep ignoring
well you go treat that paper as your bible, and ill use my own research and stats and experience as the formation of what i will continue to go by.

by the way, that paper has lots of if's and assumptions too. so take it with a grain of salt.
just because someone puts a fancy title page and calls it a 'paper' doesnt mean its well researched

transactions having a fee does not guarantee acceptance in a block
transactions having a fee+x does not guarantee acceptance in a block before a transaction thats just fee-x
pools are free to choose a transaction to include for any reason they please. so fe's and blocksize are not things the network should mess with because it doesnt help/coerce a pool into doing what a network wants.

again a pool could develop its own fee rationale and cause users to adapt.
EG pools could stop accepting segwit transactions unless they pay the same price a legacy tx pays
EG pools could stop accepting legacy transactions priced at a 4x segwit comparative and only accept legacy tx's with cheap fees at a 1:1 comparative

pools can decide to ignore certain transaction formats like LN CLTV's

you and your papers assumptions that pools automatically will grab the highest tx and aim to fill blocks is the biggest empty assumption of all

Funny , people always seem to forget the miners control the fees structure.
Miners could raise the price of transacting in segwit alone,
so it compensated them for the lost transactions revenue stolen by LN from the normal onchain fees.
That would be some cosmic humor.  Cheesy


How? By flooding the mempool? Cool



Damn , how can you be that stupid.

Miners inserts transactions into a block based of accepting the included fees.
All they have to do is refuse segwit transactions if the paid fee is too low.  Tongue


Quote

LN offchain fees would be higher than BTC onchain fees in such a scenario.    Smiley
Flaws created by using a soft fork instead of a hard fork.   Tongue
Cough Cough, I mean Features.  Cheesy


That doesn't make sense. In that "scenario", blocks would be empty, and Lightning would be in-demand to its maximum limit.

Geez, go read a book, you know nothing.

If the Miners drive the price of segwit transaction fees say 200X what a normal onchain transaction cost,
then even if LN hub prices are zero, normal onchain transactions will be 200X cheaper than a segwit transaction.
And users will use onchain for the cheaper fees instead of LN.


Quote
FYI:
So as a miner, I know a segwit address allows say 200 extra transactions offchain in LN,
so I automatically charge 200X more for segwit transactions than a normal transaction to compensate.
Well, I bet no one saw that one coming.   Wink


You assume ALL miners will be cooperating together to undermine the system. But if that happens, then Bitcoin has failed.


1. It would be in All of the miners best interests since they will be in direct competition with LN.
2. It only takes the Top 3 mining pools to make it happen.  Cheesy

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2019, 11:04:06 PM
 #71

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.   Roll Eyes

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 12, 2019, 11:19:26 PM
 #72

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 12, 2019, 11:20:42 PM
 #73

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1462



View Profile
May 13, 2019, 12:07:12 AM
 #74

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
squatter
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 893


STOP SNITCHIN'


View Profile
May 13, 2019, 01:16:13 AM
 #75

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2019, 12:00:51 PM
 #76


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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1342


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2019, 06:25:08 PM
 #77

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1462



View Profile
May 13, 2019, 09:30:46 PM
 #78

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 812


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
May 14, 2019, 06:52:39 AM
 #79

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. Cool

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


Roll Eyes

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? Cool


▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████████▄
▄██████████████████████▄
██████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
▀██████████████████████▀
▀██████████████████▀
▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
   ███████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
██████████
███████
BTC  ◉PLAY  ◉XMR  ◉DOGE  ◉BCH  ◉STRAT  ◉ETH  ◉GAS  ◉LTC  ◉DASH  ◉PPC
     ▄▄██████████████▄▄
  ▄██████████████████████▄        █████
▄██████████████████████████▄      █████
████ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄ ████     ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ▄██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██▀
████ █████ ██████ █████ ████    ██
████ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ▄██████▄
████████████████████████████ ████████
███████▀            ▀███████ ▀██████▀
█████▀                ▀█████
▀██████████████████████████▀
  ▀▀████████████████████▀▀ 
✔️DICE           
✔️BLACKJACK
✔️PLINKO
✔️VIDEO POKER
✔️ROULETTE     
✔️LOTTO
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1462



View Profile
May 14, 2019, 10:21:36 AM
 #80

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. Cool

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


Roll Eyes

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? Cool

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

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!