The Blocksize War is still ongoing.

[DooMAD]

block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

Not your call.  Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost.  No formula or measurement will make that decision for them.  The impetus will come from them and not the other way around. 

The scaling debate proved pretty conclusively that people talking about what it "should" be are just making noise.  The only thing that matters is what non-mining nodes will offer to relay and what miners support.  And that will be determined by the code people are choosing to run.

If code doesn't exist to support your view or you aren't actively running that code, you're achieving nothing.  Everything else is just a somewhat worthless opinion.

[franky1]

block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

Not your call.  Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost.  No formula or measurement will make that decision for them.  The impetus will come from them and not the other way around. 

The scaling debate proved pretty conclusively that people talking about what it "should" be are just making noise.  The only thing that matters is what non-mining nodes will offer to relay and what miners support.  And that will be determined by the code people are choosing to run.

If code doesn't exist to support your view or you aren't actively running that code, you're achieving nothing.  Everything else is just a somewhat worthless opinion.

conclusion
doomads cult admits core authority where users have no say or choice over code.. because "backward compatibility" doesnt make choice it just allows things to pass without checking if core uses its softened rules to change things.  where user nodes bypass rejecting things it does not have rules for

the non-mining nodes he speaks of are not user nodes with "backward compatibility" he speaks of the core nodes that are altered by core and their sponsors (NYA economic nodes) to elevate their control.. to allow/reject what THEY do-dont want.. everyone else is just a follower of core code change after the fact of core politics

doomad will use his cult recruits to REKT anyone releasing proposals/code that has not gone through the core moderation policy of technical discussion to even get a proposal to elevate beyond discussion

[Medusah]

-snip-

OK.  So, you DON'T know how to SCALE.  You only know how to complain about the current state.  You want blocksize increase but you are not willing to move to an alternative network (like Bitcoin Cash).  You need to grow up and realize that in these networks, people do not fair go along with your word.  You either accept the compromises of the current network or you use another network.  It's a fantastic deal considering that before that you could not have the second option. 

[franky1]

-snip-

OK.  So, you DON'T know how to SCALE.  You only know how to complain about the current state.  You want blocksize increase but you are not willing to move to an alternative network (like Bitcoin Cash).  You need to grow up and realize that in these networks, people do not fair go along with your word.  You either accept the compromises of the current network or you use another network.  It's a fantastic deal considering that before that you could not have the second option.  

if you think the only option is blind follow core or create an altcoin
then you are definitely on the centralised bitcoin cult side, you want the tyranny control of core human politics AKA a government

you have failed understanding the point of bitcoin
you have failed understanding consensus purpose
you have failed understanding the point of decentralisation
you have failed many things

but thanks for admitting you are one of those idiots..
go ahead and remain ignorant. seems its too late for you.

all thats left for you now, is to replace yourself at the keyboard, for a bot that just recites/repeats doomads cult messages
...

the only option is not "do nothing onchain to benefit bitcoiners thats different of core politics or create another network and leave bitcoin".. thats is just stupidity of a controlling group of idiots narrative

the only option is not "do nothing onchain to benefit bitcoiners or LEAP to nonsense amounts of absurdity numbers no rational person takes serious"
..
i have listed multiple things that can achieve a growth of transaction counts without needing to(their other narrative to avoid any benefit) LEAP to nonsense numbers
i do laugh that doomad and his cult think that code cannot control change via formulae or measurement... um here s highlight. formulaes and measurements to effect change is exactly what code does
to think bitcoin can only operate via core devs politics decisions is the biggest failure doomad and his cult keeps reciting
take the 'network hashrate difficulty' for instance. it does not need core dev politics involvement every fortnight

responding to below

no bitcoin consensus should be where those using the bitcoin network dont just have blindly slave follow core politics or leave
but instead not have a central core government..
you wanting a core government jsut makes bitcoin a failed FIAT currency.
bitocin was created to not be government controlled by a class of hierarchy people in authority..

bitcoin was invented where different node brands on the bitcoin network should and could propose upgrades for the bitcoin network without needing to kiss the core monarchy ring. where by without core REKT campaigns the best code to benefit bitcoiners then (again emphasising without the REKT campaigns from core cultists) gets to activate an upgrade that benefits bitcoiners on the bitcoin network

..
i do gotta laugh when those idiots think the only option is
"follow core devs as governments who want to only add features to bitcoin that benefit leaving bitcoin for other networks(sub or alt)"
scaling bitcoin is not about leaving bitcoin for other networks, but is funny to see the idiots try to push that agenda

[Medusah]

then you are definitely on the centralised bitcoin cult side, you want the tyranny control

Me:  Wants from people to have the freedom to choose the network that is the best for them.  
You:  Wants from people to... do it in your way otherwise they are spammers and extremely oppressive?  

Got it!  

[ABCbits]

So any solution that tells to just increase blocksize will inevitably turn into a network of one or a few large servers controlled by an entity that could be blocked or physically raided by law enforcement.

That's why block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

the cost of running is negligible

if the idiot brigade telling you stories that the cost of a $50 hard drive is too high, listen to them when they then say they prefer no one transacting unless they pay $50 for one transaction.. and listen hard and good at their hypocrisy and tyranny of not wanting people to use bitcoin unless they pay stupid high fee for one transaction but call that one transaction high fee 'acceptable cost', but stupidly say the same amount is too high to protect decades of transactions
if you agree that $50 is ok for 1tx but $50 is not ok for 20 years of millions of tx.. then you need to sort your math out and not just blindly recite silly things

increase based on measurements.. but that of block fill over time.. not dev politics of deciding costs
core DEVS should not pretend to be economists , pretending they care about the price/cost when all history and examples of their economic decisions show  they prefer to miscount things, discount the wrong things, premiumise te wrong things, and do it all to promote another network people should use.

core devs need to get out of governing the network and get out of sponsoring other network migrations.. and instead concentrate on bitcoin features that benefit bitcoiners not their fiat backed sponsors that want to become the middlemen controller of crypto

I somewhat disagree about increasing based on how much block is filled, considering previous Ordinals spam. But otherwise i actually support bigger block size.

I don't think any sane Bitcoiner would agree to pay $50 for as TX fee and i already run full node on more expensive hardware. Besides, even $100+ used computer like this one (4 core, 16GB) with extra $50 probably can handle at least 5x of current BTC block size/weight while still can be used for other light tasks.

block size should be increased based on specific measurement (e.g. cost of hardware and cost of running) , rather than choosing arbitrary number (just like what BSV did).

Not your call.  Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost.  No formula or measurement will make that decision for them.  The impetus will come from them and not the other way around. 

The scaling debate proved pretty conclusively that people talking about what it "should" be are just making noise.  The only thing that matters is what non-mining nodes will offer to relay and what miners support.  And that will be determined by the code people are choosing to run.

If code doesn't exist to support your view or you aren't actively running that code, you're achieving nothing.  Everything else is just a somewhat worthless opinion.

I never state i make any call either. And i never say about implementing formula which determine maximum block size either.

[DooMAD]

block size should be increased based on specific measurement

Not your call.  Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost.  No formula or measurement will make that decision for them.  The impetus will come from them and not the other way around. 

I never state i make any call either. And i never say about implementing formula which determine maximum block size either.

It sounded as though you were suggesting that someone would calculate some costs, determine a block size based on those costs and that those securing the chain would just kinda go along with it.  But whatever you did or didn't say, I'm making it abundantly clear that it doesn't work like that. 

[mindrust]

If you are not happy with the high fees of btc, just use litecoin. Don’t waste your time with  bch which is a failed project. Litecoin has been dominating the on-chain purchases on bitpay for months now. It is clear that ltc is the ultimate cryptocurrency people want to use. If btc’s onchain was cheap, everyone would use it but it is not really cheap. Ltc is faster and cheaper. Yes it is a shitcoin, a btc copy pasta but guess what, that doesn’t stop ltc from being a great crypto.

See this?

This is how the real world adoption looks. Litecoin has been dominating the crypto payments. It is the ultimate crypto currency till it  becomes a store of value coin like bitcoin.

This screenshot above guarantees that litecoin will always have a price support no matter what happens. It is because it solves a real world problem. People really use it to buy goods. BCH was supposed to be like this but guess what, LTC is better than BCH.

Bch is done. The competition was over long time ago. LTC won.

[DooMAD]

[image]

See this?

This is how the real world adoption looks. Litecoin has been dominating the crypto payments. It is the ultimate crypto currency till it  becomes a store of value coin like bitcoin.

This screenshot above guarantees that litecoin will always have a price support no matter what happens. It is because it solves a real world problem. People really use it to buy goods. BCH was supposed to be like this but guess what, LTC is better than BCH.

People always used to say that if BTC was digital gold, then LTC would be digital silver.  Guess they weren't wrong.  Proof of the power of both network effects and first-mover advantage.  Earlier coins are proving more resilient than later clones.  They've had more time to grow their userbase and provide greater utility because of that.  A 'snowball effect' in action.

[franky1]

block size should be increased based on specific measurement

Not your call.  Block size will only be altered if/when those securing the chain collectively agree to bear that cost.  No formula or measurement will make that decision for them.  The impetus will come from them and not the other way around.  

I never state i make any call either. And i never say about implementing formula which determine maximum block size either.

It sounded as though you were suggesting that someone would calculate some costs, determine a block size based on those costs and that those securing the chain would just kinda go along with it.  But whatever you did or didn't say, I'm making it abundantly clear that it doesn't work like that.  

(stuff in red is exactly what doomad had been suggesting in his cult narrative of core adoration policy of them making decisions "someone" "them")
sounds like it was DOOMAD that suggested we should wait for someone (core) to collectively make the decisions because he does not believe in consensus(consent of the masses)

funny how he said many times for years that users dont get to tell core what to code and users just follow cores decisions, (his narrative: backward compatible (opt in (upgrade to latest core) after the activation by core) buzzwords) or users can make another network if they dont like cores decisions as the only choice to oppose core politics...(his narrative: follow core or f**k off)
yet now he says users get to choose collectively(consensus).. (i know him well enough that i think he is implying core is the 'collective',"them" as decision makers)
however if there is a true network node collective choice by the greater masses of bitcoin users..
choice based on which codebase/full node brand? which code base/brand will he not want to be REKT before people even get a choice?

seems he forgets his own narrative of which side he sits on..

it is funny though how he says bitcoin cant be coded to do things (like manage its own hashrate difficulty using measurements/formulaes) and how bitcoin requires human politics aka a coding government of decision makers that are not the bitcoin users, but a central group(core) of lead maintainers

but the funny thing is bitcoin is code. bitcoin does and can use code to create formulae that look at measurements(reference again "hashrate difficulty") without ongoing need of core human politics.. but doomad doesnt believe in trusting code, he wants us to trust core devs and be obediant to core devs, not code that can do things autonomously

[mindrust]

People always used to say that if BTC was digital gold, then LTC would be digital silver.  Guess they weren't wrong.  Proof of the power of both network effects and first-mover advantage.  Earlier coins are proving more resilient than later clones.  They've had more time to grow their userbase and provide greater utility because of that.  A 'snowball effect' in action.

Yes they weren't wrong indeed.

LTC is exactly like silver.

Look at gold (I mean actual gold, not btc), while gold is wandering around its ATH price(~$2200), silver (not ltc, actual silver) is nowhere near of its ATH (~$50). Gold to silver ratio today is 2183,86÷24,61=88.73. Silver has much more use in the industry than gold. More to that, silver becomes unusable once it is used. Gold can be as used again and again. You can use gold 10000 times and then use the same gold again for the 10001st time and it will function just like how it did in the last 10 thousand times. I heard that's not the case with silver.

We see the same picture between BTC and LTC. LTC is dominating the purchases but its price is not reflecting that demand from the users. People use it more, people need it more to buy stuff but its price is not going anywhere.

[Medusah]

If you are not happy with the high fees of btc, just use litecoin. Don’t waste your time with  bch which is a failed project. Litecoin has been dominating the on-chain purchases on bitpay for months now.

Or just use Monero and enjoy top anonymity levels and the lowest fees.

however if there is a true network node collective choice by the greater masses of bitcoin users..
choice based on which codebase/full node brand? which code base/brand will he not want to be REKT before people even get a choice?

You do not need to make it any more apparent that you have no idea of what you are talking about.  Bitcoin is not around the masses voting for their most favored protocol.  It is about masses being given the alternative to select their most favored protocol.  Not change protocols.  Enter protocols.

[Plaguedeath]

We see the same picture between BTC and LTC. LTC is dominating the purchases but its price is not reflecting that demand from the users. People use it more, people need it more to buy stuff but its price is not going anywhere.

Litecoin is currently the best choice as cryptocurrency that be used as a currency.

The price is quite stable and acceptable in a lot services, unlike Monero which get banned by government.
Safe enough and quite decentralized, unlike relying on centralized smart contract which usually get hacked once every few years.

Right now there's no problem with Litecoin, probably when it's already gain more attention, we might see ordinals inscriptions would attack Litecoin.

[franky1]

If you are not happy with the high fees of btc, just use litecoin. Don’t waste your time with  bch which is a failed project. Litecoin has been dominating the on-chain purchases on bitpay for months now.

Or just use Monero and enjoy top anonymity levels and the lowest fees.

look at you all 'if your not happy with bitcoin use another network'
funny how those promoting that no one should suggest bitcoin onchain scaling solutions, are the same people that admit they prefer to use other networks and promote other networks

however if there is a true network node collective choice by the greater masses of bitcoin users..
choice based on which codebase/full node brand? which code base/brand will he not want to be REKT before people even get a choice?

You do not need to make it any more apparent that you have no idea of what you are talking about.  Bitcoin is not around the masses voting for their most favored protocol.  It is about masses being given the alternative to select their most favored protocol.  Not change protocols.  Enter protocols.

you really need to drop the doomad rhetoric and instead research bitcoin
the purpose of hardened rules and consensus was that new features did not activate unless the masses consented by having network readiness for a change..
that got softened in recent years where now core can change things even before network readiness to understand new core features
LEARN BITCOIN not cult adoration narratives, and you will see what bitcoin was all about before the core religious crap stepped in

yes core have got a foothold and now able to do more crap without network readiness but learn bitcoin and learn why we should not let it stranglehold bitcoin further.. learn that a core government is a central point of failure that needs to be sorted out

and dont bother replying if you are just going to sound like something you read from the cult group..

learn the real purpose of bitcoin and its consensus mechanism that ensured network readiness to fully validate rules. learn why it was invented and learn what need to change to get back to a secure lean and stronger network thats not governed by core politics and its twit army of cultish idiots

bitcoin is code and code can do things without the need of dev politics and sheep following acolytes
there should not be a central point of failure commanding and governing it. where it requires a hierarchy of human political decisions in a centralised group such as core

the point of my question is..
we should get back to numerous full node reference client brands on the network(that dont get REKT just for not being in cores roadmap path), where there is no single(centralised) moderated monarchy of proposal politics, whereby proposals are not controlled/REKT if they are not cores master plan. and then people can decide which is best and the best option activates based on consensus(consent of the masses)..

things you need to research:
solution to the byzantine general issue
consensus
the fact that bitcoin can operate without a central core government, and should operate without a central core government

and no.. the only option is not "follow core or f**k off to another network", though idiots will try to say thats the only option(they prefer to ever see)

edit about below
funny to see them same guys promote other networks in a topic about bitcoin scaling/blocksize needs for bitcoin utility

[ABCbits]

If you are not happy with the high fees of btc, just use litecoin. Don’t waste your time with  bch which is a failed project. Litecoin has been dominating the on-chain purchases on bitpay for months now.

Or just use Monero and enjoy top anonymity levels and the lowest fees.

But don't forget Monero theoretically have lower TPS. While Monero have 2 minute block time, Monero TX is bigger and has smaller block size than Bitcoin. Looking at https://moneroj.net/blocksize/, current average Monero block size is only about 342KB.

[Medusah]

we should get back to numerous full node reference client brands on the network(that dont get REKT just for not being in cores roadmap path), where there is no single(centralised) moderated monarchy of proposal politics, whereby proposals are not controlled/REKT if they are not cores master plan. and then people can decide which is best and the best option activates based on consensus(consent of the masses)..

You're not getting it, are you?  The roadmaps of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Litecoin and so on are not determined by just the users, but by the developers.  People decide which protocols to join according to the available options and roadmaps.  You cannot force a developer implement what you have got in your head.  The developer is free to write any code he/she wants and you can do nothing about it other than not running it.  

That's how it's going to work, no matter how you feel about it.

But don't forget Monero theoretically have lower TPS. While Monero have 2 minute block time, Monero TX is bigger and has smaller block size than Bitcoin. Looking at https://moneroj.net/blocksize/, current average Monero block size is only about 342KB.

If there's enough demand, Monero can deal with more onchain transactions compared to Bitcoin.  The dynamic block size limit can be increased to maximum of (60 KB, 2 * median size for the past 100 blocks).  Read more about it in here:  https://monero.stackexchange.com/a/74.

[franky1]

You're not getting it, are you?  The roadmaps of Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Monero, Litecoin and so on are not determined by just the users, but by the developers.  People decide which protocols to join according to the available options and roadmaps.  You cannot force a developer implement what you have got in your head.  The developer is free to write any code he/she wants and you can do nothing about it other than not running it.  

you sound too much like doomad, infact i think you are doomads alt account because its too similar/verbatim to not be doomad

what you dont get is that core can code things, BUT bitcoins consensus WAS hard consensus(and should be hardened again) where it required the network of USERS to be ready to understand a new features rules and format BEFORE the feature would activate. thus requiring the consent of the masses to activate a feature(consensus)
thus like years ago(pre may 2017) core had to propose things and get users onside to want to upgrade and be ready to THEN activate

however things have changed(after sumer 2017) due to the softening of the way things work where by core can now implement stuff without users mass consent (consensus)
because users nodes now dont need to understand new stuff and just let it be accepted into blocks and not reject blocks that have data that nodes do not understand..
things have become softened where it no longer requires a mass of full network nodes to fully validate all bytes of a block...

this trick has allowed core to do things like ad exploits which have caused headaches, congestion and fee peaks and bloat.
and now that all other brands that could have different other proposals outside of cores roadmap, have been REKT before they even got popular on the bitcoin network so no one bothers because they know they will get slammed by an army of cultish idiots screaming at them that they should create an altcoin instead of propose things on the bitcoin network, and how the bitcoin core moderation policy of all discussion platforms and other development has been a closed door to anyone not kissing the core monarchy ring and obeying the core path

learn what consensus did for the network before core softened it.. it will shock you(if you re not doomad) but im starting to think you are too similar in the narratives being verbatim to not be his alt account

[mindrust]

funny to see them same guys promote other networks in a topic about bitcoin scaling/blocksize needs for bitcoin utility

The OP and you also are promoting a different network other than Bitcoin. Remember BCH is not Bitcoin.

BCH is an altcoin just like LTC and XMR. I am indeed not happy with the transaction fees and there are lots of people like me. As you can see in the chart I posted earlier, many people who think like me have decided to use Litecoin.

If you (and the OP) don't like BTC or find it expensive like me use something else. Hell, use BCH if you want. Nobody's stopping you. Apparently though, most people decided on LTC.

Why don't you create a thread and educate people on BCH if you like it so much? Why do you think people like LTC more than BCH?

[franky1]

i am not even talking about BCH you idiot.. and stop thinking the answer to everything is "accept cores central governing politics or f**k off to another network"

how about you as a other network adorer move yourself to another network if you love them so much, then us actual bitcoiners can get back to discussing methods of scaling bitcoin.. without your silly other network promotion plans

you have no clue what you speak of and you only want to speak of doomads mantra of moving people to other networks while keeping core devs as a god like central government,, you want bitcoins fees to stay high stay bloated with meme junk and telling people to not transact on bitcoin because the issues affecting bitcoiners becomes promoting tools for your other network you love.

i still find it funny that the actual idiots that promote other networks should be the ones that should move themselves to other networks.. and stop trying to get bitcoiners to be the ones that should leave

actual bitcoiners like me want to sort out the central points of failure that have arisen in the last under a decade era, and get things sorted to actually scale BITCOIN

[mindrust]

i am not even talking about BCH you idiot.. and stop thinking the answer to everything is accept cores politics or f**k off to another network"

how about you as a other network adorer move yourself to another network if you love them so much, then us actual bitcoiners can get back to discussing methods of scaling bitcoin.. without your silly other network promotion plans

you have no clue what you speak of and you only want to speak of moving people to other networks while keeping core devs as a god like central government,, you want bitcoins fees to stay high stay bloated with meme junk and telling people to not transact on bitcoin because it promotes your other network you love. and yes ou sound to much like doomad to just be a acolyte, you are copying him too much.. you really need to learn things like independence, decentralised brands on one network, proposals from independent people on one network.. consensus

You want bigger blocks. LTC has bigger blocks. Use LTC, problem solved. Stop being a moron for one second.

BTC is digital gold with small blocks. Accept it and move on.

Here are the choices you got:

a) Digital Cash (LTC)
b) Store of value/Digital Gold (BTC)



c) Keep crying bwaaa Core killed BTC bwaaa why not Core make blockz bigga

^ I feel like you'll always choose c)