Bitcoin Forum
April 03, 2020, 10:32:31 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [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 ... 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] 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 08:55:51 AM
 #2141

I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill.

I don't see how that's relevant to my argument here. He paid me to post on other forums; not this one. I'm doing this for free.

Let's be quite clear, your not doing it for free, your doing it to brown nose Popescu hoping he'll throw you a few scraps.
Good god man, sort yourself out, what the hell is wrong with you?

1585909951
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585909951

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585909951
Reply with quote  #2

1585909951
Report to moderator
1585909951
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585909951

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585909951
Reply with quote  #2

1585909951
Report to moderator
Best Rates For Exchanging Cryptocurrency Buy Crypto With Credit Card Smooth Exchange Multiple E-Payment Systems Check Now Check Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1585909951
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585909951

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585909951
Reply with quote  #2

1585909951
Report to moderator
1585909951
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1585909951

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1585909951
Reply with quote  #2

1585909951
Report to moderator
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:16:32 AM
 #2142

How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By not inventing and trying new stuff? How did everything that we have today got to this point? By getting it right from the first time and never trying new and absurd things to everything around us???

Go invent your "better finance system" somewhere else; if it's truly better, it'll win out. I'm not afraid of all the countless altcoins attempting exactly this.

That doesn't answer to my question. I will try again: How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By nailing it from the first time? This is what we had with our current financial system?

I expect an answer, not a rejection, but I don't assume that you are capable of one since you already tried to divert the discussion. Show me something that big like a financial system that got it right from the first time without experimenting new stuff! I dare you! Double dare you!

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 09:23:16 AM
 #2143

By nailing it from the first time?

Isn't this precisely what Gavin wants to do? By committing Bitcoin today, to what he thinks the capabilities of tomorrow's computers will be?

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 10:40:48 AM
 #2144

By nailing it from the first time?

Isn't this precisely what Gavin wants to do? By committing Bitcoin today, to what he thinks the capabilities of tomorrow's computers will be?

Well no. You are trying to divert from the subject one again. Gavin is the pioneer that pushed development and evolution further. Every software has evolved this way. Every software pushed the hardware to new limits. Looking at every piece of software from inception up to today's state it's easily to see that the requirements of software were always bigger than current hardware until they reach an equilibrium. Didn't PC games pushed the video card business further? Didn't video processing pushed hardware further in terms of pure raw power and code optimization?

By your logic no software should evolve if the developers aren't pushing the current hardware requirements.

Even if the tomorrow's computers will not be able to handle it, it's not like we can't go back if the tomorrow computers will not be able to handle what is Gavin proposing and it's not like we will not have some kind of warnings ahead.

I would expect to see more constructive points from a Staff member instead of continuous opposing arguments and useless questions that bring nothing new to the table.

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
zebedee
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 668
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 10:49:18 AM
 #2145

I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill.

I don't see how that's relevant to my argument here. He paid me to post on other forums; not this one. I'm doing this for free.

Let's be quite clear, your not doing it for free, your doing it to brown nose Popescu hoping he'll throw you a few scraps.
Good god man, sort yourself out, what the hell is wrong with you?
Lol, sad but true.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 10:54:36 AM
 #2146

FWIW I am relatively new here, though, after having read the article, I can't avoid noticing that Paymium/Bitcoin-central
offers this services not directly but through a chain of partnership (Paymium -> Aqoba -> Crédit Mutuel Arkea).

I dunno if it still applies, the article's quite old as it was published on Dec 2012, but if it's the case I've seen more than once the
"Finance industry" fighting back trying cutting links between exchanges and the entity entitled of the actual money transmitter
license. I'm not saying that's the case, though.

Your reading and comprehension are accurate.


Now that you've validated my skills I feel better.

Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.

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

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 11:14:35 AM
 #2147

Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.

Sure. If that kind of business was easy and straigthforward, everyone would be doing it.
The particular way in which we do it makes it so that each of our customers has an account directly with the financial partner, which makes cutting the tie on a whim much harder for the bank.

It protects our customers a lot in the sense that the bank can't simply and suddenly freeze our funds on a BS pretext, they have to answer to each and every customer individually. As of today there are only two entities doing this properly, Paymium, and bitcoin.de


You are trying to divert from the subject one again.

Just putting a mirror in front of you. If that's not an enjoyable experience it's usually not the mirror that's to blame...


Gavin is the pioneer that pushed development and evolution further. Every software has evolved this way. Every software pushed the hardware to new limits. Looking at every piece of software from inception up to today's state it's easily to see that the requirements of software were always bigger than current hardware until they reach an equilibrium. Didn't PC games pushed the video card business further? Didn't video processing pushed hardware further in terms of pure raw power and code optimization?

You can't compare bitcoin to video games if you want to make any sort of sense.


By your logic no software should evolve if the developers aren't pushing the current hardware requirements.

With your logic we end up with a new iOS every year, designed at pushing the hardware and getting us to buy a new iPhone...


Even if the tomorrow's computers will not be able to handle it, it's not like we can't go back if the tomorrow computers will not be able to handle what is Gavin proposing and it's not like we will not have some kind of warnings ahead.

That's completely backwards, it just makes so much more sense to wait that the hardware actually is of handling it before doing a modification...

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 12:55:08 PM
 #2148

I know you gotta eat, but a thought experiment: replace the name MP with Josh Garza and see how stupid revealing your shill position is, because they're equally scum of the earth.

Suppose that some mysterious organization paid me to post here, just like you, I don't see how that's relevant to my arguments at all!  Wink

Or I could search the logs for garza and "from:mircea_popescu" to find that the latter was calling the former a scammer in December 2014.

Quote from: #bitcoin-assets
mircea_popescu: here's a newsflash : idiots defrauded by garza haven't "lost their money trying to take over bitcoin" anymore than the idiots defrauded by buterin & the us propaganda machine through the etherium scam have lost their money "trying to take over bitcoin"
mircea_popescu: you weren't in any sense and at any point trying to "take over bitcoin", or anything else for that matter.
mircea_popescu: you just... gave a scammer... some of your money. because you're stupid. whole story.

And there is no mystery which organization I came to support. What's a mystery is why you're here -- whether stupidity, malice, or both. Either way, the wood-chipper awaits.



Let's be quite clear, your not doing it for free, your doing it to brown nose Popescu hoping he'll throw you a few scraps.

If that were true, and I'm not saying it's entirely false, so what? Do you think I argue against socialism in favor of hierarchy to be ironic?



I expect an answer, not a rejection, but I don't assume that you are capable of one since you already tried to divert the discussion. Show me something that big like a financial system that got it right from the first time without experimenting new stuff! I dare you! Double dare you!

I don't care what you've come to expect. You and your ilk are the ones trying to "divert the discussion." I am on point: there will be no hard fork, and anyone who falls for it will lose their money. Show me anything like bitcoin. Diversion? The diversion is implying that bitcoin should be like anything that's ever happened before.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 01:28:58 PM
 #2149

I am not at all surprised that my comments on this forum are not well accepted. Before bitcoin came along I was (and still am) one of those people who preaches a literal interpretation of The Bible, against the entire world. It has never been my goal to fit in or make lots of friends. My goal is strictly to tell the truth, no matter how offensive it may be.

Pretty sure you've got that backwards.  You latch on to the most offensive drivel you can find and then make a decision to interpret that drivel as truth.  Then you jump on your high horse and spout said drivel.  It's no wonder you're such a fan of Mircea-Next-Tuesday.

There isn't a single thing that you, Davout, Mircea-Next-Tuesday or any of the other #bitcoin-asshats can say that doesn't give the the immediate impression that this is a power play on your part.  You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.  

It's clear what you're hoping to achieve.  By keeping a 1MB limit, you guarantee a decentralised and secure system for yourselves and force everyone else to place trust in an off-chain, third party service and risk getting screwed over.  Anyone who adopts crypto from this point forward will not accept a second tier service because a bunch of elitist crackpots think a little too highly of themselves.  That's why the fork is going ahead.

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 01:45:25 PM
 #2150

You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.

Except that the "drawbridge" is still open -- that is, the barrier to entry is still relatively low. All you need to do is get in the WoT, and read the log for a year or so. If I was trying to keep you out, I wouldn't be here telling you about it.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 01:47:45 PM
 #2151

Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.

Sure. If that kind of business was easy and straigthforward, everyone would be doing it.
The particular way in which we do it makes it so that each of our customers has an account directly with the financial partner, which makes cutting the tie on a whim much harder for the bank.

It protects our customers a lot in the sense that the bank can't simply and suddenly freeze our funds on a BS pretext, they have to answer to each and every customer individually. As of today there are only two entities doing this properly, Paymium, and bitcoin.de


very well done.

kudos to Paymium and bitcoin.de then.

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 10, 2015, 01:48:02 PM
 #2152

You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.

Except that the "drawbridge" is still open -- that is, the barrier to entry is still relatively low. All you need to do is get in the WoT, and read the log for a year or so. If I was trying to keep you out, I wouldn't be here telling you about it.

this hole MP thing sounds more and more like a sect to me.

(i wont comment on blocksize change anymore - unsure whats best and i'll keep the decision to the people who have to decide it: miners)

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

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 02:11:57 PM
 #2153

You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.

Except that the "drawbridge" is still open -- that is, the barrier to entry is still relatively low. [and yet another plug for the circle-jerk-of-trust that I'm not going to dignify by quoting a link to]

If the userbase increases and blocks are full, the choices are as follows:

  • Pay an average fee and still wait for the next available block that isn't full (which will take longer and longer as more users join, even if you pay a fee)
  • Pay an above-average fee and hope that it's more than everyone else is paying (and if you don't guess correctly, wait for the next block)
  • Go off chain and hope that whoever you trusted doesn't run off with the coins
  • Use another coin

Obviously the whales won't mind paying the above-average fee, but everyone else will be forced to introduce risk to their transaction.  It will either be delayed, or if you go off chain, you have to place trust in a third party.  Guaranteed security for them, risk for everyone else.

Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now.  The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size.  It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain).  None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

You might try to carry out Mircea-Next-Tuesday's little threat and launch your 1MB-only nodes if you fancy fighting the inevitable, but I'm still pretty sure you're full of hot air on that one since you know it would be financial suicide.  When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.



this hole MP thing sounds more and more like a sect to me.

Spot on.  They've already made the argument that when Gavin spent a few minutes in their IRC channel to have a chat with them, that it was a sign of weakness or concession on his part (which is obviously horseshit), yet they still think they can tempt the rest of us in there.  It's just a desperate, evangelical, recruitment drive to try and drum up support for their odious side of the argument.

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 02:39:59 PM
 #2154

(i wont comment on blocksize change anymore - unsure whats best and i'll keep the decision to the people who have to decide it: miners)

Sorry for repeating myself, but you are bringing up previously refuted points:

VII. The minersi decide.

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned : while one's a scammer that I humiliatingly defeated in the past whereas the other a scammer that I humiliatingly defeat in the future, this makes no difference for Bitcoin. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left.

The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions on #bitcoin-assets. Consider this terse explanation from March. 2013.

Quote
mircea_popescu: whoever has enough money to matter is likely to pick one chain for whatever reason
mircea_popescu: since fork means btc can be spent independently on either chain
mircea_popescu: he will sell his btc on one and perhaps buy on the other.
mircea_popescu: as a result prices will rapidly diverge, panicking the mass of users, and the fork is economically resolved.

The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviourii, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the Bitcoin chain are accepted as valid on both Bitcoin and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by Bitcoin. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in Bitcoin, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.



Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now.  The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size.  It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain).  None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

You might try to carry out Mircea-Next-Tuesday's little threat and launch your 1MB-only nodes if you fancy fighting the inevitable, but I'm still pretty sure you're full of hot air on that one since you know it would be financial suicide.  When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin. I'm not going to start supporting UnSavoryGarnish just because it's taken a trendier hippsterish form. And since this is yet another rehashing of previously refuted points:

XIII. Bitcoin has worked fine so far, and is sending the world's elite running for cover - from political to financial to media elites. Clearly this means more of the same won't work in the future, and it must be changed to more closely conform to what these elites like to see, which only coincidentally happens to strictly resemble each and every other previous challenge to their authority, which only coincidentally hapepend to all failed. Because we're idiots, and so should be you! For equality.

Go away.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 02:48:23 PM
 #2155




Does anyone else find it sad, a bit depressing, that this thread has once again devolved into conflicts of personalities instead of ideas?
It doesn't matter what any individual personality supports, what matters is whether the proposition itself is meritorious.  Nobody gets to rest on their laurels no matter how gilded those laurels may be.  

I don't like the current proposal, it is a decent guess, but it doesn't solve the problem.  It is a patch only.  It takes tremendous hubris to imagine that anyone knows what will happen with Bitcoin transaction volumes in 20 years.

Since any proposal that projects future transaction volume will be guaranteed to be wrong, why this proposal?  
- If a proposal is too small, it takes a hard fork to increase it.
- If it is too big, a soft fork can make it smaller, or the miners can use smaller values for their max block sizes.
So the proposal errs on the side of being too big, and wrong for 20 years.

Understanding the reasoning doesn't help me to like it.  I still hope a good better proposal, or at least a road map for fixing the block size issue.  
Instead we have a patch for expediency.  This is a huge opportunity here to make a meaningful contribution to the wealth of the code that is being wasted and put on the back burner for a generation.


FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 02:57:30 PM
 #2156

Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now.  The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size.  It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain).  None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

You might try to carry out Mircea-Next-Tuesday's little threat and launch your 1MB-only nodes if you fancy fighting the inevitable, but I'm still pretty sure you're full of hot air on that one since you know it would be financial suicide.  When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin.

That's the best reason to support the fork yet.   Tongue

You can try to refute what I'm saying by yet again quoting MP's ramblings, but it doesn't change the fact that people's natural tendency is to want what benefits them.  A 1MB limit will not benefit the majority, so the majority won't want it.  Why would anyone support a system that guarantees security for the few and forces risk and uncertainty on the many?  Unless they're one of the few, that is.

sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 02:59:30 PM
 #2157

(i wont comment on blocksize change anymore - unsure whats best and i'll keep the decision to the people who have to decide it: miners)

Sorry for repeating myself, but you are bringing up previously refuted points:


The miners decide, they can be influenced by points 1 and 2, but they decide

For point 1, if 80+% miners leave (if not, fork won't happens), it will be long to recover and have a difficulty that fit the left hashrate.

For point 2, it's economical factors that will influence miners. so they still decide, but one can influence them. also, to buy on Bitcoin chain, it will be very hard to move coins with the left hasrate.

(I call Bitcoin the actual Bitcoin chain)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 03:02:51 PM
 #2158

If the userbase increases and blocks are full, the choices are as follows:

  • Pay an average fee and still wait for the next available block that isn't full (which will take longer and longer as more users join, even if you pay a fee)
  • Pay an above-average fee and hope that it's more than everyone else is paying (and if you don't guess correctly, wait for the next block)
  • Go off chain and hope that whoever you trusted doesn't run off with the coins
  • Use another coin

Obviously the whales won't mind paying the above-average fee, but everyone else will be forced to introduce risk to their transaction.  It will either be delayed, or if you go off chain, you have to place trust in a third party.  Guaranteed security for them, risk for everyone else.

The fees are pretty tiny, they aren't what supports mining, the inflation supports the mining.  The 20 year proposal bridges the time where this may be projected to change from inflation to fee supported mining.  This may make it particularly dangerous in its assumptions.  We won't really know until we get there.

Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now.  The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size.  It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain).  None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

The limit isn't pointless.  Please understand the reasons satoshi added it before progressing further.

When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

This sentence does even more damage to your position than anything else you have written here.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 03:20:24 PM
 #2159

When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

This sentence does even more damage to your position than anything else you have written here.

This whole discussion started because MP decided to throw his toys out of the pram and start making threats.  Me calling BS on those threats doesn't undermine my position in any way, shape or form.  I want what's best for the many, not what's best for MP and his band of cronies.


Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now.  The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size.  It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain).  None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

The limit isn't pointless.  Please understand the reasons satoshi added it before progressing further.

This has been discussed to death.  The limit was intended to prevent blockchain spam, not create an artificial bottleneck to limit legitimate transactions and force legitimate users off-chain, which is the effect it's going to have if it isn't raised.  

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 03:44:48 PM
 #2160

A 1MB limit will not benefit the majority, so the majority won't want it.  Why would anyone support a system that guarantees security for the few and forces risk and uncertainty on the many?  Unless they're one of the few, that is.

I do not deny that "the majority" wants all sorts of stupid things; where you're wrong is that this somehow matters. They don't have any money, and therefore will not get their way in this world. How does your argument differ from that which is used to justify the Federal Reserve? I mean, do you think bitcoin is supposed to be like Obolacare? If "adoption for all" is the goal of the former like "heathcare for all" was the goal for the latter, then why not just make a key escrow between thermos and USGavin that enables them to create a coinbase of arbitrary value whenever they please, for the purpose of giving money to people who wouldn't otherwise have been able to participate?



The miners decide, they can be influenced by points 1 and 2, but they decide

For point 1, if 80+% miners leave (if not, fork won't happens), it will be long to recover and have a difficulty that fit the left hashrate.

For point 2, it's economical factors that will influence miners. so they still decide, but one can influence them. also, to buy on Bitcoin chain, it will be very hard to move coins with the left hasrate.

For point 1, they can't even get more than 10% on "version 3" which isn't even the hard-forking version. Check your debug.log for the string 'SetBestChain'.

For point 2, it may be hard, but not impossible. But it won't be an issue for long. The miners will be forced to switch back in that scenario because they will not find enough buyers on the new chain. The U.S. Government can try to prop up gavincoin for a time, but they will eventually run out of other people's money -- that is, the more they spend on electricity and gavincoin, the more they devalue the dollar. This serves to strengthen the real bitcoin. And since the fork necessarily writes free options for those of us who want to keep the old chain, we'll be shorting gavincoin on the open market while buying up the real deal. It's a win-win-win, and no matter how you look at it the fork just cannot succeed. At this point the only purpose in promoting it is to create a time-sink/distraction from more productive endeavors.



The limit was intended to prevent blockchain spam, not create an artificial bottleneck to limit legitimate transactions and force legitimate users off-chain, which is the effect it's going to have if it isn't raised.

What you call "legitimate transactions" I call spam. Pay for your voluntaryism themed lapel pins with silver rounds for all I care, but don't think for a second I will abide them on my hard drive.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  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!