Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[RoadStress]

Blockchain pruning is entirely do-able.

Cool story, but it doesn't really solve anything.

So increasing the blockchain (in size, per block) is not a solution and decreasing it isn't either?
I find this, illogical. What are you proposing?

What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.

But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second.

Davout's opinion on the 20MB fork is correct; your ad hom attacks on him just make you look desperate.

Hello Icetard! How much money do you have left from the HashFail scam?

You forget one thing. It's not Davout's opinion that matters. It's the network's opinion that matters since it's a consensus network!

Are you now going to also accuse Andreas of needing to stop BTC from growing, to satisfy his ego?

Andreas sees the bigger picture. Bigger than what we are discussing here. Since you are too stupid to think for yourself let me tell you that even if Bitcoin becomes a gold-standard for many other currencies it still needs to support more tps that the present value = biggers block size is needed!

Go back to supporting scamming/failed businesses Icetard!

[cbeast]

What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.

But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second.

You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[justusranvier]

Davout's opinion on the 20MB fork is correct; your ad hom attacks on him just make you look desperate.

Wasn't talking about Davout.

[RoadStress]

What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.

But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second.

You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

I see this as a chance of building another service. Offer metadata from the pruned blocks. The way to go is to continuously design, build and improve, not to limit things. For every issue there is a solution that can be deployed. By avoiding issues and by refusing to research and develop new stuff we are putting ourselves in a bubble which will hinder our evolution.

[cbeast]

What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.

But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second.

You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

I see this as a chance of building another service. Offer metadata from the pruned blocks. The way to go is to continuously design, build and improve, not to limit things. For every issue there is a solution that can be deployed. By avoiding issues and by refusing to research and develop new stuff we are putting ourselves in a bubble which will hinder our evolution.

That's very zen. You can sell more by making less. Groovy. That's right up there with increasing value by keeping block space scarce. That's like saying  the deeper the hole, the more dirt it holds.

[RoadStress]

That's very zen. You can sell more by making less. Groovy. That's right up there with increasing value by keeping block space scarce. That's like saying  the deeper the hole, the more dirt it holds.

Keeping the block space scarce hinders innovation and various services/startups that do not have the money to use the limited block space. Stop with the limitations already. Not at this small scale!

[RoadStress]

Are you now going to also accuse Andreas of needing to stop BTC from growing, to satisfy his ego?
Are Andreas' accomplishments and contributions "plateauing" as well?
Is Andreas likewise leading a "cult of personality?"  Or are Davout and Andreas both leaders in the same cult?  Please clarify!   

Just finished watching "Andreas M. Antonopoulos testimony for Australian Senate"

Andreas states that all the issues in the Bitcoin ecosystem are being solved with innovation instead of regulation

So up yours Icetard scammer!

[Lauda]

What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.

But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second.

You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

May. It doesn't necessarily mean that it will. There has to be a way to use less space for the same amount of transactions.

[BootstrapCoinDev]

You "trust " Gavin? Good for you, but as a side note, the purpose of bitcoin is trustworthiness. About the hardfork, I disapprove. Because if we hardfork to 20mb that means at some point be will have to hardfork again. Clearly not a thoughtful proposal taking in consideration the risks of a hardfork.

[Lauda]

You "trust " Gavin? Good for you, but as a side note, the purpose of bitcoin is trustworthiness. About the hardfork, I disapprove. Because if we hardfork to 20mb that means at some point be will have to hardfork again. Clearly not a thoughtful proposal taking in consideration the risks of a hardfork.

Sure. So who will be blamed when we live though the downfall of Bitcoin then? Gavin again?

Trustworthiness? That's why it is open source. (if you're aiming for the code)

[NewLiberty]

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

The system doesn't need low value actors to increase its overall value, on the contrary, including those creates the risk that the system will crumble under its own weight.

It is an interesting perspective and raises some questions.
Does Bitcoin need more users or more investment? 
Does one bring the other? 
Is one more important than the other? 
Or, is it just that investors need more users and users need more investors?

I suspect that to some extent, most of us here are both users and investors, and with some individual weighting toward one or the other.

Bitcoin is also a destination, a community, an experience.  It has intangible benefits.  It is a movement of personal empowerment.  It engenders happiness in ways that few technologies have been able to do.

The greatest wealth of the planet are the productive humans.  Money may allow the harvesting and channeling of that productivity, and there are some VERY bright people in this community. 
This technology-of-money experiment is one of the more interesting and exciting world-changing endeavors, for people.    Where it is going can only be imagined.  I can not say what it needs.  I'm more motivated to work toward maintaining quality in order to keep it from failing.

[iCEBREAKER]

What he probably means is that pruning does nothing to increase transactions per second.

But it's helping with the management of the bigger blocks which indirectly help the increase of transactions per second.

You're not transmitting those pruned blocks. You may also be pruning important metadata and destroying part of the Bitcoin ecosystem.

He doesn't care.  Having to trust centralized master archive nodes is a small price to pay for his dream of achieving maximum Bitcoin monopoly.

Because God forbid retail consumers don't use the same tool to buy coffee as financial institutions use to settle million/billion dollar deals.

In Roadkill's feverish mind, even the suggestion 'perhaps an altcoin would better for using at Starbucks' makes you an evil shill.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

You fear we must fix Bitcoin until it breaks in order to save it from certain death?  I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Bitcoin is antifragile.  It thrives in the face of adversity and scarcity.

The madness here is the megolomania and hubris displayed by the Monopolist Maximalist camp.

Satoshi fully expected Bitcoin's supporters would fight very hard to keep the system small/light/nimble/defensible/diffuse/trustless/resilient:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

He did not say

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset will scale just fine, because cheap hard drives.

Bitcoin developers might get increasingly tyrannical about expanding the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of retail users and small businesses.

[forlackofabettername]

roadstress on every page sometimes multiple times, insults, repeating same strawman arguemtns over and over again, frequent use of ad hominem, very emotional style of debate, immune to reasoning, bad skills in processing informations which aren't reflecting his own standpoint. Very unpleasant to read and drags down quality.

Just what my impression is.

[iCEBREAKER]

roadstress on every page sometimes multiple times, insults, repeating same strawman arguemtns over and over again, frequent use of ad hominem, very emotional style of debate, immune to reasoning, bad skills in processing informations which aren't reflecting his own standpoint. Very unpleasant to read and drags down quality.

Just what my impression is.

yes that's true. roadstress sucks at thinking and writing.  we've all noticed that.  i suggest you ignore his pointless posts.

[danielpbarron]

Just finished watching "Andreas M. Antonopoulos testimony for Australian Senate"

Andreas states that all the issues in the Bitcoin ecosystem are being solved with innovation instead of regulation

The dead can't state things; I'm not sure how this is even relevant.

[Arghhh]

You "trust " Gavin? Good for you, but as a side note, the purpose of bitcoin is trustworthiness. About the hardfork, I disapprove. Because if we hardfork to 20mb that means at some point be will have to hardfork again. Clearly not a thoughtful proposal taking in consideration the risks of a hardfork.

What do you mean? The proposed 20MB hardfork includes 10 doublings over 20 years.

[Arghhh]

I just noticed that most of the 20MB opponents are altcoin supporters. They're the same people who would troll sidechain proposals too. They don't want positive things for Bitcoin.

[ajareselde]

I dont understand whats the real problem with 20mb fork, its obviously necessary to keep up with advancement. Bitcoin never was hard coded and thats that,
pieces were allready fixed and changed, and so will this one.
There are some risks to make this move, but in capable hands, even if it backfires, it will be patched up real soon, so just let it go.

cheers

[justusranvier]

There is no particular hash rate needed to secure Bitcoin - the relevant criterion is:

"Is most of the planet's double-SHA256 capability being used for Bitcoin mining?"