Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Quantus]

If Giga-bloat-coin happens I fear pedophiles will start uploading not just links to websites like they do now but full HD images into the block-chain for mere pennies.

[1614751115]

1614751115

[1614751115]

1614751115

[R2D221]

If Giga-bloat-coin happens I fear pedophiles will start uploading not just links to websites like they do now but full HD images into the block-chain for mere pennies.

If I buy a server I fear that somebody can hack me and then use all available space I paid for to upload child porn, without them spending a thing.

[davout]

yes. so what? people can use many so called "coins". what's the problem?

Absolutely none.

[kingcolex]

If Giga-bloat-coin happens I fear pedophiles will start uploading not just links to websites like they do now but full HD images into the block-chain for mere pennies.

Oh you're getting desperate now.

[Lauda]

If Giga-bloat-coin happens I fear pedophiles will start uploading not just links to websites like they do now but full HD images into the block-chain for mere pennies.

Such a great 'anti' argument.
This is worse than DPR's lawyers accusing Karpeles.

[benjamindees]

But, assuming that sidechains or similar will eventually take the majority of daily transaction load off of the main chain, what is a reasonable size to target?  With a 130 MB block size, everyone on Earth would be able to make two transactions per year.  That's a minimally-functional savings account, in my book.  Anything less would have to be considered useful for "institutions-only".  Again, not the point of Bitcoin.  So I think this is a reasonable minimum to consider.  Getting there in 10 years would not be much of a burden.  I would love to hear valid arguments from the anti-fork crowd against this schedule, especially ones that don't involve magical artificial-scarcity-based economics or shrill cries of "think of the miners!"  Any takers?

...

Regardless, my view is that we need to explore more of a compromise.  Both of the proposals have issues of one type or another.  Burying our heads and ignoring the issue won't solve it.  And, if there is going to be a fork, which I think is inevitable, sooner is better than later.

btw benjamindees has been fully ingnored right now.

If that's your response to an attempted compromise, there isn't much point in trying to reason with you.  I have yet to see anyone on the "1MB" side admit that *any* increase is beneficial, at all.  Like I said, it has always been clear that the 1MB limit was temporary.

[davout]

an attempted compromise

A what?

[RoadStress]

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.

I already told you that there will be services that will be willing to pay some sort of fees for various reasons. If your only argument is that everyone will want to use the free alternative then I think we are done here. I don't have the time or the crayons to explain it to you.

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.

Well I never claimed that I do, but I am not trying to push things on what I think it will happen or not like you are trying to do. I just want Bitcoin to have endless possibilities for everyone, not only for those willing to pay a higher fee.

[Buffer Overflow]

If Giga-bloat-coin happens I fear pedophiles will start uploading not just links to websites like they do now but full HD images into the block-chain for mere pennies.

What stopping them from doing this now and spreading it over multiple blocks?

[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.

I already told you that there will be services that will be willing to pay some sort of fees for various reasons. If your only argument is that everyone will want to use the free alternative then I think we are done here. I don't have the time or the crayons to explain it to you.

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.

Well I never claimed that I do, but I am not trying to push things on what I think it will happen or not like you are trying to do. I just want Bitcoin to have endless possibilities for everyone, not only for those willing to pay a higher fee.

In the first paragraph you make a claim that requires you to know what will happen, and in the second you claim that you have never claimed such a thing. The fact that you can't even see this makes it obvious that trying to explain anything to you that contradicts what you want to believe is futile.

[RoadStress]

In the first paragraph you make a claim that requires you to know what will happen, and in the second you claim that you have never claimed such a thing. The fact that you can't even see this makes it obvious that trying to explain anything to you that contradicts what you want to believe is futile.

By not allowing bigger block than 1MB we close the door to many things that could happen. In my first paragraph I said that I think there will be services that will be paying nice miners fee for various reasons. I don't know the reasons, but I know that there can be some cases where someone is interested in paying a nice fee for miners. By not increasing the block size limit we simply close the door for all the things that could happen and I feel that is wrong.

Having a 1MB block size limit only because the average Joe will not have money for a bigger HDD is simply retarded and useless since this is just a technical hiccup that can be fixed if the developers will dedicate their time for it. Now with the blockchain bloat issue out of discussion what is the next major argument against not raising the block limit?

[R2D221]

I’ll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can’t maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch.

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

It was never stated that the block size is final. It is stated that the number of coins is final. See the difference?

[R2D221]

I’ll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can’t maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch.

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

It was never stated that the block size is final. It is stated that the number of coins is final. See the difference?

Just keep repeating that yourself.

OK. Give me the source where Satoshi says the block size is final and I will change my mind.

[Buffer Overflow]

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

This is pure FUD.

The block size cap is temporary, always has been.
The coin supply is permanent, always has been.

There is a Pacific ocean of a difference.

[Lauda]

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

This is pure FUD.

The block size cap is temporary, always has been.
The coin supply is permanent, always has been.

There is a Pacific ocean of a difference.

Just ignore such trolls. You can't reason with them.
The worst part of it all is that they are trying to argument to stop the fork using false information, where they clearly don't even understand the underlying technology correctly.

[R2D221]

It's not FUD, its a FOD.

I thought it was FUD.

[Buffer Overflow]

ad hominem everywhere, I'm out this discussion, enjoy your fork.

I don't see why the Bitcoin fork would bother you anyway.
Remember...

there is no reason to use Bitcoin now that Monero is the perfect virtual cash

[kingcolex]

ad hominem everywhere, I'm out this discussion, enjoy your fork.

I don't see why the Bitcoin fork would bother you anyway.
Remember...

there is no reason to use Bitcoin now that Monero is the perfect virtual cash

uh, yes Bitcoin is a ridiculous bad coin for payments, its slow and traceable but the current network effect can render it an electronic gold, you dont use gold to buy coffee, you use it to store value.

You comment is an example, with Bitcoin if I know that an address belong to someone I can go back in time and use its history to perform ad hominem attacks, or worse

Bitcoin is perfect for payments, it can transfer instantly, it has low fees, it is proven, it has payment processors who sell things unlike Monero.

[zimmah]

I’ll try to restate a point from that post that it seems some people are missing: you can’t maximize the total price paid for something by simply limiting the supply of that something, especially if there are substitute goods available to which people can switch.

I can't possible be the only concerned with the possibility that Gavin or whoever is in his place in the future wont try to increase the number of coins, the same argument will apply. Hard-forking is a mistake.

And what makes you think we would agree?

Just because we agree with Gavin when he makes a sane decision doesn't mean we agree with him when he makes an insane one.

[Gavin Andresen]

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.