Bitcoin Forum
July 24, 2017, 12:57:03 PM *
News: Due to BIP91, it would starting now be prudent to require 5 times more confirmations than usual before trusting transactions.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 [1482] 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1936080 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 05:45:33 AM
 #29621

No one cares about an altcoin boasting 5x Bitcoin's capacity...because it's not Bitcoin. But if it boasts 100x Bitcoin's capacity, that's a game-changer. We have to at least get in the ballpark. Watching from the sidelines is not going to cut it, and I refuse to call that in any way conservative, patient, or careful.

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

To get in the ballpark where some people here would wanna go you'd need 100000X anyway.

I also happen to think it would be a mistake, from where you sit, to pretend that people involved are "watching from the sidelines".

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.

Spinoffs work as an altcoin defence provided we're talking about Bitcoin vs. altcoins in the context of the Bitcoin community. But as long as you have a gigantic mass market still largely unfamiliar with Bitcoin, an "altcoin" (not an altcoin from their perspective, which is the key point) can take over if it can pull off the miracle of dramatically outpacing Bitcoin's adoption rate.

For elaboration of this aspect of the argument, see:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423570#msg11423570
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423612#msg11423612
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423877#msg11423877
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11423961#msg11423961 (best summary here)

That miracle becomes a lot easier if Bitcoin gets artificially hobbled way below its potential. Now the question of whether we could have 100MB blocks now without wrecking decentralization, and are leaving all that extra capacity on the table for "Supercoin" to come and grab, remains up in the air. Surely intelligent people can disagree on where exactly the real capacity limit lies, and probably by orders of magnitude at that, considering all the optimizations we have yet to think of and all the new brainpower that the next wave of exponential growth will bring in.

The correction I'd like to make is to the idea that we can afford to keep Bitcoin potentially one or more orders of magnitude below its capacity under the assumption that we have all the time in the world to succeed.

and as many have pointed out, esp awemany, we can always soft fork back down to the real limit if we overshoot.
Decentralized search
Search for products or services and get paid for it
pre-sale Token CAT
25 July 50% discount
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1500901023
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500901023

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500901023
Reply with quote  #2

1500901023
Report to moderator
1500901023
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500901023

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500901023
Reply with quote  #2

1500901023
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 05:48:22 AM
 #29622

And I'm actually a fan of just getting good at hard forking, so that Bitcoin can be more exploratory with trying various things, always of course only those extremely careful changes that the market supports. But when you have that option, you can afford to merely raise the blocksize to 2MB, then 3MB, then 5MB, etc. in small increments and see if there is an issue, then fork back down if needed. That seems like the ultimate answer to these controversies.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 06:29:32 AM
 #29623

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 06:36:00 AM
 #29624

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 06:54:48 AM
 #29625

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:15:46 AM
 #29626

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.


So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:21:12 AM
 #29627

I just want bigger blocks. Hard fork, hard fork to infinity with soft limit back to 2 MB, round keg into a square hole, rewrite the system in fortran, ip over avian carriers. Implement the evil bit. Whatever it takes.

If people mostly can agree on hard max blocksize of 1100000 bytes, I applaud that too. It should be quite safe.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1484



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:23:15 AM
 #29628

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.


So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:46:16 AM
 #29629

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.


So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

Once u start u can't stop

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:54:49 AM
 #29630

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 08:14:27 AM
 #29631

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi


sarcasm?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 08:17:28 AM
 #29632

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi


sarcasm?

Yes.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 01:43:45 PM
 #29633

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 02:04:48 PM
 #29634

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 02:15:41 PM
 #29635

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

 Shocked

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh  Angry

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 02:29:10 PM
 #29636

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.


For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

 Shocked

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh  Angry

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.



Nah, I just get tired of little kids being inconsistent and constantly whining to be argumentative and trying to appear knowledgeable.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 03:54:59 PM
 #29637

talk about getting rekt.  i prefer the word "spanked" really.  and he confirms exactly what i said the moment gmax made that stupid reference a few days ago:


Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
2 days ago
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Report
I have just been around for 2 years or so, and its interesting to see you two
argue and give links to the past conversations.

But do realize that if you argue in public about content that is easy to read
by anyone that you have to double check your memory fits the facts.
And I feel you skipped that this time...

>Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
(The same message also mentions that smart contracts can be used to
create trustless trade with off-chain systems;
As well, later in that
thread: "it will be much easier if you can freely use all the space
you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in
Bitcoin's chain.")

Hmm... A DNS record is much much bigger than a single bitcoin transaction has
space for.
I don't think you can take his quote out of context. The thread shows that
having a full domain-registry DB on chain is what he was explaining doesn't fit
with Bitcoin.

So Satoshi just explains that a rich database shouldn't live on the
blockchain. Similarly with the quote you made before;
"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one
dataset doesn't scale."
It just fights the stupid idea of sharing the blockchain space with tons of
global databases.

Please re-read the whole thread as it really doesn't support your view that
Satoshi argued that somehow decentralization would be protected by limiting
the size of the chain.
--
Thomas Zander


in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 01, 2015, 04:26:12 PM
 #29638

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining"

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 04:27:26 PM
 #29639

Oh, and one other thing to substantiate what satoshi was actually saying. This is how Namecoin came about as a merge mined solution as opposed to an onchain one.

Oh, and I always knew I was registered here on BCT before gmax.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2015, 07:04:26 PM
 #29640

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining"

Kid Troll.

has a ring to it.
Pages: « 1 ... 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 [1482] 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 ... 1558 »
  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!