[POLL] Is bigger block capacity still a taboo?

[franky1]

It is laughable to pretend that the same levels of security and decentralization exist in BSV, Solana, etc. If other coins "manage to do the impossible", how come they are still shitcoins?

you do know that ASICS do not store blockdata right.. they just hash a hash
(a hash is the same length no matter the blocksize.. a blockheader is the same length no matter the tx data total)

the "security" of hash cost has NO correlation to block size

the reason altcoins are shit is due to the fact that the social steer towards them does not exist.
most altcoins have no underlying value and their market price is artificially held up. they have no good 'store of value'


the market speculation vs underlying economic store of value... has nothing to do with block bytes
the block bytes have nothing to do with hashpower cost/security

What's your opinion about the blockchain trilemma? Is it BS?

as just told to blackhat.. the
scalability(blocksize/tx count) <> security(mining) are not correlated
scalability(blocksize/tx count) <> decentralisation are not in opposition

the more transactions individuals can do the more individuals
the less transactions, means users tend to not run nodes and just used centralised services for daily use

once you get passed the myth ("PC's from a decade ago is not bitcoin capable"). you stop believing the myth
instead you realise people can use old computer and not "servers" to run bitcoin even if it scales

[cryptosize]

its also worth noting that CORE stop supporting windows versions when windows stop supporting their old versions
windows 7 bbecame unsupported in 2020 so windows 8 is min standard core devs find viable for bitcoin now
windows 8 was first released in 2012. and 3TB hard drives in 2012 were only $150 back then.

You do realize that Windows is a far more popular desktop OS (compared to Linux) due to the fact it offers backwards compatibility with multi-decade old apps (like 32-bit apps from the 90s), right?

Hell, sometimes you're even allowed to install old drivers, just because the Windows kernel offers a stable ABI (unlike the Linux kernel). Good luck doing that with Linux closed-source drivers/binary blobs.

32-bit Windows OSes still support running 16-bit apps. Same for x86 CPUs. Are they superior compared to RISC CPUs? Not really.

Windows is not a superior OS compared to Linux, but it offers the best backwards compatibility out there.

I've experienced every kind of IT debate you can possibly imagine (Windows vs Linux, CISC vs RISC) and let me tell you that backwards compatibility always wins, for better or worse. Even game consoles these days offer BC.

I get it that some people prefer using superior solutions, but it's all a matter of network effect (aka Metcalfe's law).

Even the IBM PC won against Amiga... where is Commodore now?

People (especially those that claim to be "old" enough, let alone youngsters) should read some IT history.

[franky1]

its also worth noting that CORE stop supporting windows versions when windows stop supporting their old versions
windows 7 bbecame unsupported in 2020 so windows 8 is min standard core devs find viable for bitcoin now
windows 8 was first released in 2012. and 3TB hard drives in 2012 were only $150 back then.

You do realize that Windows is a far more popular desktop OS (compared to Linux) due to the fact it offers backwards compatibility with multi-decade old apps (like 32-bit apps from the 90s), right?

point was.. when core set the standards and put a age limit on their support.. it funny how some of them and their fangirls then try to incite some taboo that bitcoin cant run on windows 98 thus must(in their eyes) require quantum computer server farm.. (one extreme to another, no middleground)
i was simply using their standards against them that even their 12 year old computers can be $400 back then and still able to handle historic data PLUS many years of future data even if bitcoin scales.. simply to debunk their own myths using their own standards

its fun to us their own standards against them

[stompix]

Has it ever crossed your mind that there is much less activity in both Dogecoin and Litecoin?

Nope, I looked at the graph and saw how for two days of high fees Litecoin outperformed Bitcoin by 200 and 400 thousand per day.

Again you're making the same mistake, by saying that if a shitcoin doesn't have the needed popularity for 10MB capacity Bitcoin should either.
It's much like saying the USA doesn't need highways because the Vatican doesn't have either! Or like it's perfectly normal to cram a Walmart in a 100 sqm shop because the previous MomnPop grocery on that lot wasn't getting more than two customers per hour.

What's your opinion about the blockchain trilemma? Is it BS?

Yes, bs, because things have changed in the last 10 years.
If internet speed would be the same all over the glove with half of it not going above 10Mbit per second it would cost you $100
 for that 10Mbit connection yeah, if a black Friday deal would involve a 500GB HDD for 70$ yeah, it would be a trilema.
Now it's exactly bullshit!

And the most ridiculous thing is that we anchor ourselves in this stupid node thing for the sake of decentralization when half of the world won't be able to even power on a nowadays miner as 5300W over 380~415V would blow the fuse and burn your house in most countries.
But yeah, the 4TB drive is the problem.



The last 8 blocks were mined in 18 minutes, on average 2.25 minutes per block, I guess I should go an sell my coins because it's obvious the chain is going to explode as the impossible did become possible, right?

 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Again you're making the same mistake, by saying that if a shitcoin doesn't have the needed popularity for 10MB capacity Bitcoin should either.

No, you misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that even with 10 MB, you will still sooner or later run out of block space, and fee market will arise. The difference is that you will have traded a percentage of the expenses of the user for the risk to split the network in half, and that there will be greater incentive to use it as a cloud storage.

I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.

[stompix]

I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.

And have you looked at the fees they pay for the spam on BSV?

To have the same current fees on Bitcoin but with 100 MB you would need spammer to pay at least 29 000 BTC, yeah 1 billion! in fees!
Every fucking day! Does it sound to you like something spammers would be able to do? 

Me and I'm sure everyone around doesn't give a damn if spammers fill blocks with 1sat/byte, what matters is that they are not forcing me to pay 100sat/b!

kills off the competition for small mining pools,

2013 called, 5 pools hold 90% of the hashrate nowadays! 

[BlackHatCoiner]

To have the same current fees on Bitcoin but with 100 MB you would need spammer to pay at least 29 000 BTC

You'll have to walk me through on this calculation.

Every fucking day! Does it sound to you like something spammers would be able to do?

You must have misinterpreted me again. Spammers don't care what other people are paying in fees. They only care if their spamming can pass as much cheaply as possible. If block size is 100 MB, then, besides the expectation that it'll always be full, you should expect that it'll be mostly consisted of data junk like Ordinals.

Me and I'm sure everyone around doesn't give a damn if spammers fill blocks with 1sat/byte, what matters is that they are not forcing me to pay 100sat/b!

If everyone doesn't give a damn about that, how come everyone stays on 4 MB block size network and doesn't move to BSV? You will probably never be forced to pay anything beyond 1 sat/vb there.

Edit:

2013 called, 5 pools hold 90% of the hashrate nowadays! 

Umm.. It's going to be a lot worse. Until the block is propagated from one pool to the other, the pool might have solved another block.

[Hamza2424]

After reading most of the posts, I'm sticking to my views, it's Taboo if by increasing the blocksize to avoid network congestion the individual miners are getting eliminated from the Network, Increasing Blocksize can be a potential solution for Bitcoin but it is inefficient, because with this solution there will be another mess about the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin.

The proposal accepted is open if increasing the blocksize individual miner's power is not affected because we don't want our node to be controlled by only large entities. Network congestion can be a problem but having a solution risking the entire nature of the network is a big mess. Simply avoid moving coins in network congestion in such scenarios until we have a better solution to scaling rather than increasing the block size only.

[franky1]

Again you're making the same mistake, by saying that if a shitcoin doesn't have the needed popularity for 10MB capacity Bitcoin should either.

No, you misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that even with 10 MB, you will still sooner or later run out of block space, and fee market will arise. The difference is that you will have traded a percentage of the expenses of the user for the risk to split the network in half, and that there will be greater incentive to use it as a cloud storage.

whilst worrying about "expense of the user" a $150 hard drive bought in 2012 and is 3TB which is enough for historic data plus future data of next 5 yearsof 10mb blocks... thus dividing cost by 17 years is less then $10 a year

you are ignoring that instead of 2500 average legacy transactions there can be 25,000 legacy average
you are ignoring that instead of 4000 lean legacy transactions there can be 40,000 legacy average
where by instead of paying $2 a day for daily use ($730/year) they can pay $73/year, saving them $637/year

so while you point fingers at the $10/year hardware cost your ignoring the $730/year transaction cost for daily use

I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.

movies dont get verified.. thats how they get in.. they bypass verification
also transaction verication of actual bitcoin rules for transactions is done 99.99% of the time at the pre-confirm relay of zero-confirm transactions..
funnily enough your favoured subnetwork devs had admitted that verifying transaction data shows nodes can handle millions of transactions a second..
funnily enough when node mempools hold 300mb of validated transactions and a block contains only 4mb.. your arguments about what a node can handle fall flat on its face

[apogio]

I vote in favour of smaller block sizes because:

Bitcoin was created to be accessible to everyone. Thus, running a miner and running a node must be cheap hardware-wise. Don't underestimate the power of nodes for the Bitcoin networks. It's not just the miners. Increasing the block size will require more disk space. More disk space require more money. 20% of the world hold approximately 80% of the global wealth, so requiring more money isn't really fair after all.

[franky1]

After reading most of the posts, I'm sticking to my views, it's Taboo if by increasing the blocksize to avoid network congestion the individual miners are getting eliminated from the Network, Increasing Blocksize can be a potential solution for Bitcoin but it is inefficient, because with this solution there will be another mess about the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin.

The proposal accepted is open if increasing the blocksize individual miner's power is not affected because we don't want our node to be controlled by only large entities. Network congestion can be a problem but having a solution risking the entire nature of the network is a big mess. Simply avoid moving coins in network congestion in such scenarios until we have a better solution to scaling rather than increasing the block size only.

try reading again

a miner does not even see full blockdata. a miner simply hashes a header (hashes a hash of a header to be more precise)
the header and hash which miners are involved in never change their length no matter how big a transaction or blocksize is

[stompix]

To have the same current fees on Bitcoin but with 100 MB you would need spammer to pay at least 29 000 BTC

You'll have to walk me through on this calculation.

Block reward + fees in last 24h 943.75+285.07 BTC, if we have 290BTC in fees in 1MB block then to keep the same fee level in 100MB we need 29 000BTC.

You must have misinterpreted me again. Spammers don't care what other people are paying in fees. They only care if their spamming can pass as much cheaply as possible. If block size is 100 MB, then, besides the expectation that it'll always be full, you should expect that it'll be mostly consisted of data junk like Ordinals.

Yeah, and they why should I care about that?
The thing is that they will not be able to force me anymore to pay 100sat/b for a tx without spending themselves 1 billion day!

Remember, the same logic as to why the network is secure because an attacker must buy 10 billion worth of gear to attack it?
Oh and btw, they would have to pay 10 million each day just to fill the block with 1sat/b, not to mention that this would triple if BTC goes to 100k.

If everyone doesn't give a damn about that, how come everyone stays on 4 MB block size network and doesn't move to BSV?

Do I have to bring again the graph with the spike in doge and ltc txs every single time fee in Bitcoin spike?
Ok, here we go:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge-ltc.html#6m

Again, you're asking yourself why people keep waiting for weeks for a reservation at a restaurant and not eating a hot dog on the street rather than thinking of opening a new restaurant to solve the problem and make everyone happy.

[cryptosize]

I vote in favour of smaller block sizes because:

Bitcoin was created to be accessible to everyone. Thus, running a miner and running a node must be cheap hardware-wise. Don't underestimate the power of nodes for the Bitcoin networks. It's not just the miners. Increasing the block size will require more disk space. More disk space require more money. 20% of the world hold approximately 80% of the global wealth, so requiring more money isn't really fair after all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

[Wind_FURY]

As for Dogecoin, lol. If you believe anyone takes this seriously, then I don't know what to say.

Then you should start saying that to everyone on this board who suggests using dogecoin instead of Bitcoin for small purchases, and there is a ton of them trust me, you'll be done by the time the mempool is empty. And if you don't believe it:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge.html#6m
This happens every single time Bitcoin fees spike, thousands move to doge!
Is LTC also laughable, or does it simply work?

If you ask me, it merely tells us that there are times that there's too much demand for block space. But the congestion we're currently experiencing is not the normal situation.

Common this is so 640k RAM will be enough for everyone is getting old!
People torrent TB of data every day on their home computers and we're scared of 1TB of storage over a year for a thing that is supposed to threaten a trillion fiat-based economy. Seriously? Latency, data transfer, FML, you have tens of thousands of ....models.....live streaming in 4k but somehow it's magically impossible to push 10MB in 10 fucking minutes to every single hole in this world.

But Bitcoin is going to replace banks while serving 600k customers a day!  

And furthermore, when some other coins manage to do the impossible, it's laughable! We're going to colonize Mars in 2240 and while beaming in one split second an entire cargo from planet to planet some will still say more than 4MB in 10 minutes it's technically impossible!

That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks. Because technically, Bitcoin at its essence might not be a mere "consumer-product", or a network to "replace banks".

Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Yeah, and they why should I care about that?

Peer-to-peer cash. Not trusting third parties. Do these remind you anything? I'm pretty sure you'll have to trust some data center after the 100 MB proposal is accepted, unless you're willing to pay ~500 GB of space each year. Oh, and by the way, you'll have to upgrade to some better CPU in a couple of years, unless you're really patient with the initial block download.

Do I have to bring again the graph with the spike in doge and ltc txs every single time fee in Bitcoin spike?

What happens, happens temporarily. I do so pay in VISA sometimes. The question remains unanswered: if big blocks are superior as you say, how come everybody does not move to BSV (e.g.)? You know, not just because Bitcoin network is currently congested and it'd be temporarily cheaper to transact there, but move there because it's more reasonable in general. If you don't consider my arguments regarding the block size limit valid, then please answer why that hasn't happened yet.

[franky1]

That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks.

that is not your personal opinion. its plageurised script from a group of idiots that lulled you into repeating their narrative
just reciting the mantra of the party line.. without doing any math, or independent thought/analysis of what he is about to write

Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin.

you then double down by using nonsense exaggerations, exaggerations that are not even original or well thought out

there are 8 billion people on the entire planet. and not all of them use one currency..
but lets say they did.. for "trillions of transactions" requires each person to buy 12 items a days SEPARATELY for one trillion.. you used plural so multiply it by your magic plural amount you have in your head..

but becasue not everyone uses one currency naturally, lets take yours
250m mature people(toddlers dont shop for themselves) using the dollar. they do not even do 3 billion transactions per day

so stop with the exaggeration that one currency needs to do trillions.. let alone billions of transactions a day

you training of a discussion of reasonable adjustments at regular periods vs your stupid training of pretending the argument is about "gigabytes by next year" huge leaps, make you look foolish

get away from your training officer(forum-daddy) and think for yourself. he is not helping you
try to use actual data, real statistics, math and logic.. not some story some troll you call daddy tells you

[franky1]

Yeah, and they why should I care about that?

Peer-to-peer cash. Not trusting third parties. Do these remind you anything? I'm pretty sure you'll have to trust some data center after the 100 MB proposal is accepted, unless you're willing to pay ~500 GB of space each year.

no one is saying 100MB by 2024.. you and your forum family troll scenarios numbers the exaggerations, miscounted and just make you look dumb..
but heres the thing you dont know.. math
100mb blocks at your extreme is not 500GB/year... its actually 5.2TB a year
and hard drives these days you can get 16TB for less than your household TV

you dont need to buy a $xbillion server centre

now put the cost of a few years of running a bitcoin node.. true math
and then look at logical 1tx a day cost per transaction for the same few years..

then come back and tell the forum which costs more.. securing or spending.. (hint the fee's are the problem not the hardware)

[BlackHatCoiner]

100mb blocks at your extreme is not 500GB... its actually 5.2GB a year

100 MB x 144 x 365 = 5,256,000 MB ~= 5.2TB per year. The 500 GB per year correspond to previously mentioned 10 MB block size.

Edit: You've corrected yourself. But, as I have said many times, it's not just the storage requirement (you can find HDD externals pretty inexpensive, even though 5.2 TB per year is quite too much). It's the verification process which takes most of the time, not the downloading. It already takes too much time, I can't fathom how much it'll take if we are to verify 100 MB.

[NotATether]

We are now at 33% for, 33% undecided, and 33% against! 

Actually, who cares about this. That issue was solved a long time ago by splitting BCH and BTC.

FRANCY1, save me from the sensors who deleted my subject like common spam. Is the truth disturbing? Sorry to impose on myself like this before my probable disappearance...

What does this memory dump have to do with block size?

[franky1]

We are now at 33% for, 33% undecided, and 33% against! 

Actually, who cares about this. That issue was solved a long time ago by splitting BCH and BTC.

FRANCY1, save me from the sensors who deleted my subject like common spam. Is the truth disturbing? Sorry to impose on myself like this before my probable disappearance...

What does this memory dump have to do with block size?

nothing
he posted nonsense in a topic unrelated to what he was trying to announce(newbies cant create new topics)

its some troll that every year creates a new account just to announce he knows the identity of satoshi due to some book he read.. it seems he enjoys me debunking him, i think he tries to use lessons from my debunks to improve his trolling/tweak his script later.. but he never wins..