danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:05:23 PM |
|
considering the fact that all the 'big' players are likely going to agree on this before anything actually happen.. The big players have agreed: it ain't gonna happen. Take your head out of the sand, and start reading the logs.
|
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
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:06:57 PM |
|
in case the hard fork goes through(I know, you don't believe it is going to happen.... but you should always plan for these "black swan " events) If, against all odds, USGavincoin wins: I will be done with " cryptocurrency." My plan in that event is to find something else to do. I don't want to have anything to do with totalitarian systems. It's like you're saying "you should plan for sucking Hitler's knob in the event that the Nazis win WW2." MP's going to do what he's going to do, but I'd be highly inclined to have the pogo's be free (in the software sense) and open. I think 20MB is fine We wouldn't have it any other way, except you still won't be allowed to use it. And to those of you who still say "I think 20MB is fine," I have this to ask: do you currently maintain a full node? Before you answer, think carefully. A full node has the entire blockchain history. It isn't enough to have all the block headers, or all the unspent outputs. You need to have everything. It also needs to have an uptime greater than 90% (really more than 99%, but I'm feeling generous). You had me at Hitler's knob.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:07:14 PM |
|
considering the fact that all the 'big' players are likely going to agree on this before anything actually happen.. The big players have agreed: it ain't gonna happen. Take your head out of the sand, and start reading the logs. these are not 'big' miners, maybe hobbyists at the very best.. ps: thank you but been reading the logs for 1+ year now... but still.. did not answered my question.
|
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:11:37 PM |
|
considering the fact that all the 'big' players are likely going to agree on this before anything actually happen.. The big players have agreed: it ain't gonna happen. Take your head out of the sand, and start reading the logs. these are not 'big' miners, maybe hobbyists at the very best.. ps: thank you but been reading the logs for 1+ year now... but still.. It doesn't matter what miners want. If you had truly been reading the logs, you would have known that. And if you have been reading the logs, and that one just slipped by: why aren't you in the WoT?
|
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
|
|
|
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:15:57 PM |
|
considering the fact that all the 'big' players are likely going to agree on this before anything actually happen.. The big players have agreed: it ain't gonna happen. Take your head out of the sand, and start reading the logs. these are not 'big' miners, maybe hobbyists at the very best.. ps: thank you but been reading the logs for 1+ year now... but still.. It doesn't matter what miners want. If you had truly been reading the logs, you would have known that. And if you have been reading the logs, and that one just slipped by: why aren't you in the WoT? oi im on it
|
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:20:17 PM |
|
considering the fact that all the 'big' players are likely going to agree on this before anything actually happen.. The big players have agreed: it ain't gonna happen. Take your head out of the sand, and start reading the logs. these are not 'big' miners, maybe hobbyists at the very best.. ps: thank you but been reading the logs for 1+ year now... but still.. It doesn't matter what miners want. If you had truly been reading the logs, you would have known that. And if you have been reading the logs, and that one just slipped by: why aren't you in the WoT? oi im on it A rating from some nobody does not make you part of the WoT. Go make some friends who actually count.
|
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
|
|
|
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:21:32 PM |
|
lol whatever, i dont need internet friends anyway. ^^
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:24:23 PM |
|
considering the fact that all the 'big' players are likely going to agree on this before anything actually happen.. The big players have agreed: it ain't gonna happen. Take your head out of the sand, and start reading the logs. these are not 'big' miners, maybe hobbyists at the very best.. ps: thank you but been reading the logs for 1+ year now... but still.. It doesn't matter what miners want. If you had truly been reading the logs, you would have known that. And if you have been reading the logs, and that one just slipped by: why aren't you in the WoT? Ridiculous. A large majority of miners will need to support the hard fork for the sake of security. That whole blog is so full of FUD I can see why you link it but are afraid to quote it. BTW, I refused to participate in the WoT because Bitcoin is trustless.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:31:01 PM |
|
BTW, I refused to participate in the WoT because Bitcoin is trustless. This is so stupid I just have to break from spontaneous laughter to address it. You are confusing the trustless nature of the currency with the trust-dependent nature of business interaction. Here, I'll go ahead and quote this one, seeing as how it's a mantra that should be printed in place of "in God we trust" on bills: have sex - with humans; do business - with keys
|
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
|
|
|
hdbuck (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:32:45 PM |
|
have sex - with humans; do business - with keys lmao thats actually a good one better not mix it up
|
|
|
|
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1014
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:43:25 PM |
|
BTW, I refused to participate in the WoT because Bitcoin is trustless. This is so stupid I just have to break from spontaneous laughter to address it. You are confusing the trustless nature of the currency with the trust-dependent nature of business interaction. Here, I'll go ahead and quote this one, seeing as how it's a mantra that should be printed in place of "in God we trust" on bills: have sex - with humans; do business - with keys Again you had me at Hitler's knob. Besides, I have a FICO score that gives me all the credit I need.
|
Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
February 16, 2015, 02:48:22 PM |
|
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .
http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/A couple years according to these researchers. Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB. It is the upper limit peaks which are problematic and preparing for the future before the next traffic increase along with other decentralized apps like lighthouse being restricted. We are already seeing full blocks from time to time at the moment, thus we should be concerned now. To which full block(s) are you referring? What height? Or by "full" are you referring to the lower than 1MB max block sizes used in some pools? If you are just making this up to escalate urgency and fake a crisis, then why do that?
|
|
|
|
Totscha
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:02:32 PM |
|
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .
http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/A couple years according to these researchers. Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB. It is the upper limit peaks which are problematic and preparing for the future before the next traffic increase along with other decentralized apps like lighthouse being restricted. We are already seeing full blocks from time to time at the moment, thus we should be concerned now. To which full block(s) are you referring? What height? Or by "full" are you referring to the lower than 1MB max block sizes used in some pools? If you are just making this up to escalate urgency and fake a crisis, then why do that? No. He is talking about the 970-980 kB blocks which not rare these days. While the average is around 300kB, that means we are at 1/3 capacity. And I personally think 1/3 is where we should seriously consider our options for scalability. The way people are split on the subject right now it is even more urgent to start getting a consensus. But on the other hand there is no hurry and no crisis. The extra transactions can just go through altcoins if Bitcoin chooses the 1MB block + higher fees 'solution'.
|
|
|
|
R2D221
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:03:39 PM |
|
I'm sorry, but I can't take anything seriously from the trilema.com blog.
|
An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
|
|
|
DooMAD
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3934
Merit: 3190
Leave no FUD unchallenged
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:37:09 PM |
|
And to think people in certain corners of the anti-fork crowd were worried that increasing the block size might lead to centralisation at some point in the future. It seems the anti-fork crowd themselves are willfully and deliberately centralising right now. Either be a part of the elitist group who will dictate who is and isn't trustworthy and (mistakenly) think they call the shots, or they won't let you play along. No one in their right mind sees that as the future of crypto and that's why I won't be joining your little #mpcoin-asshats fanclub or your circle-jerk of trust. Nor will anyone else with an ounce of sense. Bitcoin's greatest strength is that it's open and has no gatekeepers. All you want to do is appoint yourselves gatekeepers and shut people out. Once again, you're only doing more to convince me that a fork is the way to go. You one-percenter-wannabees are more than welcome to be the kings of your little 1MB molehill after the rest of us have left you far behind in order to scale greater summits. I'm sorry, but I can't take anything seriously from the trilema.com blog. Likewise. They're like the joke that keeps on giving. If they keep it up, no one else will take them seriously either. I honestly can't tell if they're trying to sabotage their own side of the argument or not.
|
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:38:19 PM |
|
Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .
http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/A couple years according to these researchers. Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB. It is the upper limit peaks which are problematic and preparing for the future before the next traffic increase along with other decentralized apps like lighthouse being restricted. We are already seeing full blocks from time to time at the moment, thus we should be concerned now. To which full block(s) are you referring? What height? Or by "full" are you referring to the lower than 1MB max block sizes used in some pools? If you are just making this up to escalate urgency and fake a crisis, then why do that? No. He is talking about the 970-980 kB blocks which not rare these days. While the average is around 300kB, that means we are at 1/3 capacity. And I personally think 1/3 is where we should seriously consider our options for scalability. The way people are split on the subject right now it is even more urgent to start getting a consensus. But on the other hand there is no hurry and no crisis. The extra transactions can just go through altcoins if Bitcoin chooses the 1MB block + higher fees 'solution'. They aren't rare, but they are not the norm. Most aren't near full. F2Pool solved a few that were close recently, above 900K. With a good number of freebies. https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000175b44859017a5148c48ecba7a67f14012232e9bb6b47a73https://blockchain.info/block/00000000000000000f9597aed448ce8429c550a65f896b66760381d0c364901eand then there is this 7K block in between https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000014efb22561313ebe3c27780808b5d8939ebc1a850badf9daThere are a lot of blocks with <200K, so we'd get some scalability of more Tx/s with a minimum block size too, but that would not be a good thing to do.
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:46:44 PM |
|
Since we are already seeing full blocks becoming more prevalent than before and are likely going to see spikes in transactions with increasing merchant adoption which isn't slowing down that what do you propose, a last minute hardfork without a lot of testing and the negative P/R our community will get from the businesses and media when transactions won't confirm from an antiquated system that can only process between 2-7 tps? What about decentralized projects like twister , lighthouse , and openbazaar that have limitations imposed by the 1MB block size? Satoshi had a vision of Bitcoin that could scale up to handle transaction rates of major credit card merchants. Those of us that invested our time and money in bitcoin invested in this vision and do not want to betrayed whether it be changing the hardcap of 21 million or keeping the system limited at only 2-7tps.
|
|
|
|
Totscha
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:50:04 PM |
|
Emmmm, I believe I also said as much. The norm is 300 kB. So all we can get is 3x as much transactions. I see that as a bottleneck. If this was my production server I'd be looking into getting a new one
|
|
|
|
danielpbarron
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Daniel P. Barron
|
|
February 16, 2015, 03:56:55 PM |
|
Yes it matters what miners want. I guess you don't follow hyperlinks, or know how to use them for that matter. Moving on...
And to think people in certain corners of the anti-fork crowd were worried that increasing the block size might lead to centralisation at some point in the future. It seems the anti-fork crowd themselves are willfully and deliberately centralising right now. Being strong opponents of anything faintly resembling socialism, we are not opposed to hierarchies. Whereas you, a contemptible piece of socialist scum, are an opponent of a decentralized monetary system. See the difference? Whatever, doesn't matter.
What about decentralized projects like twister , lighthouse , and openbazaar that have limitations imposed by the 1MB block size? What about them? I don't see them in the WoT. Regardless, do you think we are going to compromise the soundness of our money so that some derpy kickstarter replacement can get a free ride on the blockchain? You're insane.
|
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
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
February 16, 2015, 04:07:53 PM |
|
Emmmm, I believe I also said as much. The norm is 300 kB. So all we can get is 3x as much transactions. I see that as a bottleneck. If this was my production server I'd be looking into getting a new one We agree on the problem, we disagree on the solution. Treating it as a 'production server' replacement, would be the wrong approach. How many times do you want to replace this 'production server' for the same reason? If we are going to a dynamic limit, it should be one that isn't going to need to change later, and can be assured that it will be fit for purpose, and without opening up new vulnerabilities. The problem with that... it isn't simple. If the limit were say 10x the average size of the last 1000 blocks, it would still provide the anti-spam protection and keep the node distribution from getting too centralized
|
|
|
|
|