Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 08:40:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154754 times)
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007


View Profile
March 02, 2015, 11:54:11 PM
 #1861

Why not you get used to bigger blocks?

Which ones?

20MB+. Why should I get used with a 1MB block when you could get used with 20MB+ blocks?

Those your imaginary magic satoshi santa will bring for christmas?

Exactly!

1710837631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710837631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710837631
Reply with quote  #2

1710837631
Report to moderator
1710837631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710837631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710837631
Reply with quote  #2

1710837631
Report to moderator
1710837631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710837631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710837631
Reply with quote  #2

1710837631
Report to moderator
"With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710837631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710837631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710837631
Reply with quote  #2

1710837631
Report to moderator
1710837631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710837631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710837631
Reply with quote  #2

1710837631
Report to moderator
1710837631
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710837631

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710837631
Reply with quote  #2

1710837631
Report to moderator
Arghhh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 12:29:36 AM
 #1862

An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).

I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...
onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 12:45:37 AM
 #1863

An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).

I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...

although i am pro bigger blocks, they have some valid points.
(atleast the ones willing to discuss something)

and dont forget for what they are fighting: a decentralized, trustable bitcoin. this is something we all want. we just dont (yet?) have a consensus how to archive this in the best possible way.

what do you define as community? who is that?
i have the same feeling here in the forum but i dont know what the people think that really counts (miners, pool owners) because in the end: its their decision.

they are influenced and incentivized through money of course... thats why i'd like to know what they'll do...luckily they are forced to announce it through the blockchain if they want bigger blocks so everybody has enough time to update.

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4564
Merit: 1276


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 01:12:27 AM
 #1864

An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).

I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...

You've got a partial correct answer in my case.

I'd say that there is about a 99.9% chance that we sent humans to the moon more-or-less in line with what the history books say, as somewhat less but still very high chance that the Holocaust happened as described by the winners of WW-II but that the event has been milked to death by the Zionists of later generations, and that there is about a 95% chance that 9/11 was completely an invention of elements within the U.S. and associated with our leadership though there probably was some technical and tactical assistance from close allies.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 07:12:51 AM
 #1865

An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).

I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...

You've got a partial correct answer in my case.

I'd say that there is about a 99.9% chance that we sent humans to the moon more-or-less in line with what the history books say, as somewhat less but still very high chance that the Holocaust happened as described by the winners of WW-II but that the event has been milked to death by the Zionists of later generations, and that there is about a 95% chance that 9/11 was completely an invention of elements within the U.S. and associated with our leadership though there probably was some technical and tactical assistance from close allies.



there are far more conspiracies than there are consipracy theories.
Arghhh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 08:34:27 AM
 #1866

An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).

I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...
and dont forget for what they are fighting: a decentralized, trustable bitcoin. this is something we all want. we just dont (yet?) have a consensus how to archive this in the best possible way.
Decentralized nodes at the cost of centralization of end-users transacting in the blockchain is not a decentralized trustable bitcoin. What exactly are these Luddites fighting for? The end of Bitcoin?

Nodes that can be ran by the poor, *but only serve the rich*, is not healthy for Bitcoin given the existence of alternative solutions that are cheaper and more efficient.

It's almost like these 1MB'er wants Bitcoin to die on purpose. Madness.
bambou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 08:40:40 AM
 #1867

An overwhelming majority of the community favors the 20MB fork. Only a handful of Luddites with their sock puppets accounts for 90% of the opposition (if you can even call it that).

I'm going to have to place the 1MB'er in the same bin as the Moon landing denier, Holocaust denier, and 9/11 conspiracy theorists...
and dont forget for what they are fighting: a decentralized, trustable bitcoin. this is something we all want. we just dont (yet?) have a consensus how to archive this in the best possible way.
Decentralized nodes at the cost of centralization of end-users transacting in the blockchain is not a decentralized trustable bitcoin. What exactly are these Luddites fighting for? The end of Bitcoin?

Nodes that can be ran by the poor, *but only serve the rich*, is not healthy for Bitcoin given the existence of alternative solutions that are cheaper and more efficient.

It's almost like these 1MB'er wants Bitcoin to die on purpose. Madness.


Non inultus premor
BusyBeaverHP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 209
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 09:11:11 AM
 #1868

It is artificially low and chosen arbitrarily.

Yeah, low and arbitrarily chosen numbers never really were an issue for Bitcoin.
And no, the block size isn't getting raised any time soon, and certainly not by Gavin.
Ingatqhvq
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 09:16:55 AM
 #1869

If bitcoin want to handle more transaction in one block, then there is no choose but to increase the size of each block.
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 09:59:59 AM
 #1870

It'll always be possible to build superior visas, and western unions on top of teleportable gold.
As for the opposite...

Arghhh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 10:21:15 AM
 #1871

It'll always be possible to build superior visas, and western unions on top of teleportable gold.
As for the opposite...

I'm not buying this idea. Teleportable gold is a bad analogy at best and delusional at worst. Bitcoin is simply a decentralized digital ledger, your idea of of teleportable gold is creating abstractions that has no basis in reality.

The value of Bitcoin is dependent on the security of the network (hashrate), and how many adopters are able to transact directly in the network.

The moment the bitcoiner discovers that the fees to interact directly with the network is the same as wiring Western Union, your teleportable gold will be rendered a penny stock without any users supporting its purchasing power, and in the end, bitcoiners will migrate to other solutions in which there are no competitive fees or artificial block size limit.

Good luck curating a ledger that charges the same rate as WU.
onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 10:24:05 AM
 #1872

It'll always be possible to build superior visas, and western unions on top of teleportable gold.
As for the opposite...


"superior visa" on bitcoin = instant.io / mybitcoin and so on...

what is superior over the currents ones?

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 12:03:23 PM
 #1873

Teleportable gold is a bad analogy

It's actually pretty awesome and spot on.


bitcoiners will migrate to other solutions in which there are no competitive fees or artificial block size limit.

And what's that gonna be? dogecoin? Some other magical altcoin that somehow has all bitcoin's strong points but none of its weaknesses?


what is superior over the currents ones?

Noobs are to do their homework, not address their betters without being talked to.

onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 12:07:30 PM
 #1874


what is superior over the currents ones?

Noobs are to do their homework, not address their betters without being talked to.

you are better than me? best joke i heard in a long time...
but as i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago i dont really care what you think of me...

BUT: i still want to understand your point about bitcoin... so please enlighten me which superior alternatives based on bitcoin are you talking about?

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 12:19:13 PM
 #1875

i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago

So why do you have a 24h old account?

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 01:06:52 PM
 #1876

i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago

So why do you have a 24h old account?

don't get angry about it, it's the way normal people can change username at will without spending 50 btc to becoming a donator.

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

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 01:25:03 PM
 #1877

i have leaved bitcoin-central a long time ago

So why do you have a 24h old account?

flower1024 -> onemorebtc -> onemorexmr
if you really want to know my history...

anyway: i really want to discuss blocksize limit and to understand YOU!
i know you dont care... but please?

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2015, 02:05:34 PM
 #1878

i really want to discuss blocksize limit and to understand YOU!

Here you go : http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/

onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 03, 2015, 02:38:37 PM
 #1879

i really want to discuss blocksize limit and to understand YOU!

Here you go : http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/

thank you!
i picked some quotes which i found interesting in the hope we could discuss them more in-depth.

Quote
The fundamental pain point here, is that Gavin insists on everyone being able to get in, instead of allowing a sane transaction fee market to emerge, by letting the blocks actually fill-up.

Quote
<davout> if tx fees are to replace the block reward the blocks *have* to be full

i dont agree.
atm we can ignore this problem as the block reward is too high (i think we agree on this?)

later a miner must still cover his costs. if this is not the case he has two choices: quitting or raising fees (lets assume they are all honest and nice for simplicity reasons).

if he is "allowed" to make bigger blocks he has a third choice: invest in bandwith and make bigger blocks.

more transactions in a block means that small changes in fee have a bigger impact on the miner.

Quote
<davout> it's up to you to demonstrate it's necessary, not the other way around, how does that not make sense?

the problem is, that the same argument goes the other way around, because satoshi did not demonstrate its necessarity when he did the change - so we could argue it is reverting a hotfix (but - thats just rhetorical)

Quote
<davout> just because going from 1tx/10min to 7tx/s makes the system more valuable, doesn't mean you get to extrapolate linearly

thats right, but who said that if we raise blocksizes the system is more valuable?
it has the possibility to get more valuable.

Quote
<davout> you can not develop a healthy market for transaction fees without blocks being full and space being scarce

i dont think so.
miners control the resource (blocksize) and the price (fee): they compete regardless of blocksize or transaction count.

Quote
<davout> the fees are not important today, but that's not because of the subsidy being here, that's because of the blocks not being full

you really think miners would compete for fees if the 1mb limit is used? the subsidy is 25btc right now fees are about 0.5 btc/block (http://charts.bconomy.com/)

Quote
<davout> [...] convenience has never been the point of bitcoin... [...] the point of bitcoin is "i own my shit, get your hands off of it"

i absolutely agree.
i'd even go so far to say bitcoin should only be used by tech-savy people (at least as long as things like trezor or heating-miners for personal use are not availble everywhere)

Quote
<davout> if tx fees are 11$ per transaction and bitcoin transactions routinely move millions and millions of dollars in each block i say make an altcoin, call it poorcoin, starbuckscoin or whatever you want, but don't try to shoehorn it into bitcoin because somehow you got married to that particular idea

if that would be the case i would move my hole wealth to that altcoin, because i dont think bitcoin will survive if there is an obviously better alternative
(btw what is your opinion about sidechains for micropayments? thats what i am unsure about...)

btw i still want to know your superior Visa/Mastercard alternative based on Bitcoin. maybe lightning network - not sure 1MB is enough room for their settlements, or something like inputs.io (they actually tried to be such a thing)?

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
Arghhh
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 03, 2015, 02:39:32 PM
 #1880

i really want to discuss blocksize limit and to understand YOU!

Here you go : http://fr.anco.is/2015/gavineries/
Gavin wins that argument by a mile, and I'm impressed by his patience despite you constantly hand-waving away the reality that moment the tx fee goes up, the users walks out the door and no Visa or WU built on top of Bitcoin can stop that mass exodus.

Gavin has published several analysis on the raised block limit and addressed the concerns brought about by the scaling of the network. There is no reason to artificially cap the block size limit beside wanting to see Bitcoin eaten up by Ethereum. I'm sure you've already read the recent ones at http://gavintech.blogspot.com/

Lastly, even if you think you're right and everyone else is wrong... see that poll above? The overwhelming majority of this community will adopt Gavin's proposal and you will not be able to stop the inevitable.
Pages: « 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 [94] 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!