Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[davout]

a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain.

Bitcoin is the fucking service.

[1715273074]

1715273074

[R2D221]

My though was to use other chains for daily payments, those where I don't mind to put trust in some service providers.

And the amounts I want to be the only one to hold keys would stay in Bitcoins. so amounts would vary depending on individuals

So money to use, some shit mastercard or dollar coin, and bitcoin for saving, like gold in a more convenient format.

I have commented before why I don't like this idea. It has to do with exchange rates.

For example, I have a bank account, but also have bills in my wallet and change in my pocket. If all these were different currencies, it would be a pain in the ass to know exactly how much money I have. What if I want to withdraw from an ATM? How many Billcoins are my Bankcoins worth? If I buy a coffee and pay with a Billcoin, how many Changecoins will I get in exchange?

Everything should be the same currency, and Bitcoin is capable of handling microtransactions. I don't understand why people say the opposite.

[RoadStress]

a blockchain that isn't viable is a dead blockchain too - by definition

(we're running in circles here)

What's the reason that it wouldn't be viable after raising the block size limit?

a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain.

Bitcoin is the fucking service.

What's the value delivered?

[Grinder]

Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free?

I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection.

I think that the blockchain should be free for regular users and shouldn't be free for the ones that are using the blockchain for running a service/project/business/etc. We can have them both (free and paid), but we need to be open and not be horse-sighted.

That's only possible if mining is monopolized and they require registration before using. I hope you don't get your way.

[homo homini lupus]

a blockchain that isn't viable is a dead blockchain too - by definition

(we're running in circles here)

What's the reason that it wouldn't be viable after raising the block size limit?

nobody would use it because people won't buy new HD's just to run gavincoin

a blockchain that can't support services is a dead blockchain.

Bitcoin is the fucking service.

What's the value delivered?

stupid question. GTFO

[Lauda]

What's the reason that it wouldn't be viable after raising the block size limit?

nobody would use it because people won't buy new HD's just to run gavincoin

Increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 does not increase the size of the blockchain by the same factor! The chain will grow gradually over time.

Besides, the average cost per GB now is 0.03$. Storage is the cheapest system upgrade that one can get.

[Grinder]

Have you even read about the Lighthouse project? One of the main points for the fork is that with the current cap we are not only limiting the amount of transactions but the development of possible services.

I did, and I found no evidence for what you are saying. Making a change that will have easily identifiable and very negative effects does not seem like a good idea to me, particularly when the only reason for doing it is a promise of more pies in the sky.

[Lauda]

I did, and I found no evidence for what you are saying. Making a change that will have easily identifiable and very negative effects does not seem like a good idea to me, particularly when the only reason for doing it is a promise of more pies in the sky.

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges

That pretty much explains it.

[davout]

Besides, the average cost per GB now is 0.03$. Storage is the cheapest system upgrade that one can get.

Do you have any idea how much time is required to bootstrap a full node?

Also nobody gives the slightest fuck about lighthouse.

[Lauda]

Besides, the average cost per GB now is 0.03$. Storage is the cheapest system upgrade that one can get.

Do you have any idea how much time is required to bootstrap a full node?

Also nobody gives the slightest fuck about lighthouse.

'No amount of time is too much time'.
Nice argument. How about we erase all services, since nobody gives a 'slightest f***'?

[hdbuck]

[RoadStress]

Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free?

I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection.

What reward? Isn't a 25BTC reward enough to protect the network right now?

I think that the blockchain should be free for regular users and shouldn't be free for the ones that are using the blockchain for running a service/project/business/etc. We can have them both (free and paid), but we need to be open and not be horse-sighted.

That's only possible if mining is monopolized and they require registration before using. I hope you don't get your way.
[/quote]

Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too?

nobody would use it because people won't buy new HD's just to run gavincoin

Pruning! We only need to develop a method to not store all the blockchain and we got rid of that problem. We got a robot to Mars, I am sure that we can find a way around a bloated blockchain!

What's the value delivered?

stupid question. GTFO

I insist that you answer. What's in your view the value delivered by Bitcoin?

Edit:

Also nobody gives the slightest fuck about lighthouse.

You should give a fuck about services/projects that can't run to their full potential because of a block size limit (or because some people want it their way) if you care about bitcoin.

[Grinder]

https://www.vinumeris.com/lighthouse/faq#max-pledges

That pretty much explains it.

And how many times has this actually been a problem?

[tvbcof]

When people propose other chains for “small transactions”, I still have the doubt, what IS a small transaction? Who decides that?

the free market decides that

OK, so even if we have two chains, I can still decide to make my microtransactions in the Bitcoin chain.

People (like me) who want a small and hardened blockchain which cannot be censored don't generally have a need for fast confirmations.  We've got plenty of a buffer in mainstream fiat so we won't run out of Top Ramen any time soon.  Most transactions on Bitcoin are part of a long-term plan so that if it takes a few days to be fairly confident that a spend is locked good that is mostly just a nuisance that one can plan for, and of a magnitude that there is little difference between a $0.01 and $10.00 transaction fee.

What this means where the rubber meets the road is that we have a lot of flexibility in terms of how to thwart superior resource attacks.  Bitcoin has been sold to the plebs as some sort of an exchange currency which is 'better than cash/debit card/whatever.'  The latency inherent in the batch-mode system has been papered over, and most of the target audience is not really smart enough to even conceptualize it anyway.  The upshot here is that a superior resources attack is considered a terminal event for 'gavincoin' while the flexibility to deal with it in 'mpcoin' is much greater.

The only reason I don't want to see a fork and a lot of hassles is that a solid reserve core upon which various tuned end-user solutions rest is the best solution for the masses, and internecine warfare would set this back.  I'm a humanist I suppose.  In point of fact, a giant war would:

 - promote a wide range of developments which would harden 'bitcoin-legacy' significantly in a number of important ways,

 - be a way to capitalize on the ignorance and pigheadedness of the plebs and take advantage of the large entities who will be spending money to attempt to exploit these masses.


As a hodler, I will absolutely be dumping my 'gavincoin' and preserving my 'mpcoin'.  This will be quite trivial.  Just send BTC to myself when the block size is higher that 1MB.  Now I can spend my 'gavincoin' at will (provided that 'gavincoin' doesn't crash and burn right away...and that is where I expect the VC's who see the bigger picture to come to the rescue.)  My 'mpcoin' remain safe and sound and supported by a core of talented and autonomous entities who have the skillz needed to deal with whatever attacks come along.

I should mention also that in times of war, casualties are expected.  If I lose some value due to a partially successful 51% attack (which only threatens double-spends for transactions in play during a time segment), so be it.  Most other reasonably skilled crypto-currency enthusiasts will have a similar understanding which vastly strengthens us 'mpcoiners'.

Once 'gavincoin' has been vanquished the next war would be to get sidechains going for the benefit of humanity.  I've never got a sense from the Popescu crowd that the have any interest in doing something decent for the 99% and don't know what drives them.  Maybe simply pure greed.  Fine.  Having leverage in a system which is generally useful and empowering to the masses be a net win from a pure profit perspective as well.

[Grinder]

I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection.

What reward? Isn't a 25BTC reward enough to protect the network right now?

You know that will be reduced, right? Or are you cherry picking which elements you want to be forward thinking about?

Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too?

Because it's distributed and anonymous. There's no way to distinguish between different kind of entities. Your free wifis are always severly limited. So much so that I've never bothered using it. They can be limited this way because they are controlled by central entities. There is really very little in the real world that can be used for analogies in the bitcoin world.

[sickpig]

Besides, the average cost per GB now is 0.03$. Storage is the cheapest system upgrade that one can get.

Do you have any idea how much time is required to bootstrap a full node?

A lot.

With the upcoming 0.10 release bootstrap time will be reduced significantly, though.

[homo homini lupus]

Why do people always want to have it their way? Who are you to decide that using the blockchain can't be free?

I'm not deciding it, I'm just telling you how it works. The reward is what makes miners protect bitcoin. If there is no reward there is no protection.

What reward? Isn't a 25BTC reward enough to protect the network right now?

that reward will not be there forever - you're not thinking it out. You  think 2 weeks ahead and that's it.

nobody would use it because people won't buy new HD's just to run gavincoin

Pruning! We only need to develop a method to not store all the blockchain and we got rid of that problem. We got a robot to Mars, I am sure that we can find a way around a bloated blockchain!

Is it already developed or do you only hope it will maybe in the future? You know as long it's not there you can't reference it as a real option.

What's the value delivered?

stupid question. GTFO

I insist that you answer. What's in your view the value delivered by Bitcoin?

if you can't answer that yourself you got no business here

[RoadStress]

Again you only see one single version of what could possibly happen. Why can't we have services that are willing to pay a fee for various reasons? It seems that you are ignoring services like GreenAddress who might be willing to pay a higher than normal fee to protect against double spends or for whatever reason they come up? Let me get back to the Internet analogy. I am sure that Google or Facebook pay a shit tons of money for their internet connections while you pay only dimes compared to them. You can not pay anything if you connect through one of the many available WiFi hotspots. Why can't we have this with the blockchain too?

Because it's distributed and anonymous. There's no way to distinguish between different kind of entities. Your free wifis are always severly limited. So much so that I've never bothered using it. They can be limited this way because they are controlled by central entities. There is really very little in the real world that can be used for analogies in the bitcoin world.

We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all.

that reward will not be there forever - you're not thinking it out. You  think 2 weeks ahead and that's it.

So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit.

Is it already developed or do you only hope it will maybe in the future? You know as long it's not there you can't reference it as a real option.

I thought that it is already in development. Am I wrong? Even if it's not, do you think it will take more than 2 years to fully deploy it? I am sure it will not.

if you can't answer that yourself you got no business here

So you can't answer. Ok we got that covered. Throw more shit please. That's all that you have!

[Grinder]

We don't need to distinguish between entities. We only need to allow them to exist. That's all.

If there is no way to distinguish between them then everyone can just tell the miners that they want to use the free alternative.

So you already know that 12 BTC + whatever fees will not be enough. Ok. Please tell me what will the exchange rate be in 2 years. Oh wait you don't know shit.

And neither do you.

[mayax]

who will develop a new Bitcoin? Who is that Gavin? You can do it yourself. Also, there are many Altcoins. why would you need a NEW BTC?

there are already many "alt coins" available and the exchanges should accept them. Does it matter the name of the "coin" or the service it offers?