Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Lauda]

yea, been there, done that:

Yet, it doesnt seem to be a problem currently.
People does not actually seems to restrain themselves from transacting more on a daily basis like your table would like to suggest.. but they just dont, right?

Personally I transact mostly offchain (trading plateforms).
Maybe buy couple products or services per month, but i mean, like it or not, bitcoin is not as handy as cash or credit cards for everyday purchases and even more for the average joe you keep on appealing.

Imho, we could easily go beyond 10 million bitcoin users without any difficulties regarding scaling.
As to when this would happen, Im not going to guestimate there..

But luckily this would give us enough time to investigate further on.

Was it not stated that when this becomes a problem, there probably won't be enough time to act? Indeed, there is no problem in the present, but there will be one very soon.
Explaining the main chain is difficult enough, trying to get people to understand offchains too is a bit much.

[1714144606]

1714144606

[1714144606]

1714144606

[1714144606]

1714144606

[1714144606]

1714144606

[hdbuck]

yea, been there, done that:

Yet, it doesnt seem to be a problem currently.
People does not actually seems to restrain themselves from transacting more on a daily basis like your table would like to suggest.. but they just dont, right?

Personally I transact mostly offchain (trading plateforms).
Maybe buy couple products or services per month, but i mean, like it or not, bitcoin is not as handy as cash or credit cards for everyday purchases and even more for the average joe you keep on appealing.

Imho, we could easily go beyond 10 million bitcoin users without any difficulties regarding scaling.
As to when this would happen, Im not going to guestimate there..

But luckily this would give us enough time to investigate further on.

Was it not stated that when this becomes a problem, there probably won't be enough time to act? Indeed, there is no problem in the present, but there will be one very soon.
Explaining the main chain is difficult enough, trying to get people to understand offchains too is a bit much.

oh i hear you.. but try to make em understand how their banks work first..
since they're ok with it - or actually they just dont care.. then offchain/sidechain/ripplechain isnt such a bad idea. ^^

[danielpbarron]

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

Yes. “Go away” is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Considering what it's in response to, yes.

Read the text in bold and you will see why there is no more valid an argument than to say "scram!"

Explaining the main chain is difficult enough, trying to get people to understand offchains too is a bit much.

I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node. If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.

[R2D221]

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

Yes. “Go away” is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Considering what it's in response to, yes.

Read the text in bold and you will see why there is no more valid an argument than to say "scram!"

OK, it seems that I can't use sarcasm here because people take me seriously.

“Go away” is NEVER a valid argument. It's just dismissing what the other side is saying without actually discussing the issue.

[R2D221]

I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node.

SPV wallets are not off-chain, yet they don't have a full node.

If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.

But what if I don't? What if I use an SPV wallet that needs access to the blockchain to work?

[danielpbarron]

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

Yes. “Go away” is a perfectly reasonable argument.

Considering what it's in response to, yes.

Read the text in bold and you will see why there is no more valid an argument than to say "scram!"

“Go away” is NEVER a valid argument. It's just dismissing what the other side is saying without actually discussing the issue.

The text in bold, if used as a serious argument, should always be dismissed without discussion; it is an inherently moot point.

I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node.

SPV wallets are not off-chain, yet they don't have a full node.

If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.

But what if I don't? What if I use an SPV wallet that needs access to the blockchain to work?

Such a "wallet" might as well be "offchain." If you're using a "thin client" without connecting to your own full node, you might as well just go offchain completely. You're already trusting a 3rd party to give you an accurate representation of the blockchain in such a situation; it makes little difference to also trust them to settle the transaction in large bundles between other full node operators.

In other words, R2D221, the 1MB'ers solution to the blocksize limit is to funnel all the peasants into centralized, off-chain solutions.

Anyone can run a 1MB node, but can everyone use a 1MB block?

It is pointless to have your petty transaction recorded in the blockchain if you aren't going to keep a copy of it on your own machine. Bitcoin isn't magic. It means nothing to have your transaction in a block if you can't actually verify that the block is valid, and you can't make such a verification if you aren't keeping a full record of all past blocks. I make no attempt to cover up the fact that most people should will be are peasants who will need to rely on lords to relay their transactions for them. That reality isn't a threat to sound money; it is a threat to your pipe dreams of socialism and equality for all. The 20MB plan is a threat to sound money because it will necessarily reduce the number of full nodes on the network, thereby making seizure by the enemy a trivial pursuit. Consider for example, the "liberty dollar" which for the sake of argument had only one "full node." It was easily defeated by confiscation of the single point of failure.

To summarize for those of you with attention spans no longer than what can fit as bold text on an image:

Larger blocks cause the problem they are intended to solve.

[Lauda]

Explaining the main chain is difficult enough, trying to get people to understand offchains too is a bit much.

I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node. If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.

Are you appealing to your own emotions or instincts, or are you saying that most people use an offchain solution because it has not been proven that they aren't? You can't just pull such statements out of a hat.

[danielpbarron]

Explaining the main chain is difficult enough, trying to get people to understand offchains too is a bit much.

I would bet that most people on this forum already use an "offchain" solution, in that they do not maintain their own full node. If you're using a website or an app to manage your funds, you won't notice the difference when your transactions aren't individually sent on the blockchain, but instead bundled up with all the other petty transactions and sent at the end of the day/week.

Are you appealing to your own emotions or instincts, or are you saying that most people use an offchain solution because it has not been proven that they aren't? You can't just pull such statements out of a hat.

Well, I said I would bet. People don't usually bet on certainties, or there would be nobody to take the other side. And perhaps I should clarify: most of the people who voted in favor of the size increase in this thread's poll are probably not running a full node; most of the people who voted against the size increase probably are. I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass, and it would probably be considered a bad bet anyway.

Look kiddo, I don't mean to sound condescending... but you can't use MP as a guru and expect people to take you seriously...

... You do know what condescending means don't you?

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.

[R2D221]

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.

You can't find the truth if you insist in a literal interpretation of The Bible. The Bible was written by different people who, hearing the word of God, may have misinterpreted or got it wrong, since to err is human.

[Arghhh]

And perhaps I should clarify: most of the people who voted in favor of the size increase in this thread's poll are probably not running a full node; most of the people who voted against the size increase probably are. I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass, and it would probably be considered a bad bet anyway.

I run a full node. Those who votes in favor of the size increase actually uses the blockchain directly, and the reason for them doing so is to not have to pass through a central gatekeeper like Paymium in the first place.

... if you're pulling numbers out of your ass, and reality shows you a different number, then you're wrong. Clear and simple.

My goal is strictly to tell the truth, no matter how offensive it may be.

Correction, your goal is to tell what you believe is the truth, whether that aligns with The Truth or not is a different matter.

[danielpbarron]

And perhaps I should clarify: most of the people who voted in favor of the size increase in this thread's poll are probably not running a full node; most of the people who voted against the size increase probably are. I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass, and it would probably be considered a bad bet anyway.

I run a full node. Those who votes in favor of the size increase actually uses the blockchain directly, and the reason for them doing so is to not have to pass through a central gatekeeper like Paymium in the first place.

Consider these two scenarios:

• Block size remains the same, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, and you will need to pay higher fees to get a transaction included.
• Block size increases, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, but the fee remains the same.

Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.

Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature.

[Arghhh]

Consider these two scenarios:

• Block size remains the same, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, and you will need to pay higher fees to get a transaction included.
• Block size increases, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, but the fee remains the same.

Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.

Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature.

What numbers have I given, or have you pulled more imaginary numbers out of your ass and called it my number as well?

You profess to tell the truth no matter what... and this is the best you come to me with???

Perhaps instead of speculating with numbers you claimed yourself, to have been pulled out of your ass, read Gavin's quantitative analysis on blockchain scalability where a claim is backed up with actual numbers:

http://gavintech.blogspot.de/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html

[Arghhh]

Remember that before blowing off Gavin and the blog I linked above, keep in mind that he has a Ph.D., is the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and is a core developer.

He might be *slightly* more qualified to propose any changes or lackthereof to the Bitcoin protocol than your guru, Mircea  

[danielpbarron]

Consider these two scenarios:

• Block size remains the same, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, and you will need to pay higher fees to get a transaction included.
• Block size increases, as does the cost of maintaining a full node, but the fee remains the same.

Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.

Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature.

Perhaps instead of speculating with numbers you claimed yourself, to have been pulled out of your ass, read Gavin's quantitative analysis on blockchain scalability where a claim is backed up with actual numbers

These are the numbers I am talking about -- the ones based on the assumption that hardware and bandwidth costs will always decrease. So you admit that you pulled them out of someone else's ass. That makes it better?

Remember that before blowing off Gavin and the blog I linked above, keep in mind that he has a Ph.D., is the chief scientist of the Bitcoin Foundation, and is a core developer.

He might be *slightly* more qualified to propose any changes or lackthereof to the Bitcoin protocol than your guru, Mircea  

I guess you haven't heard: there's a new foundation in town.

How do you suppose these attributes qualify him to make determinations of an economic nature? I would not trust UnSavory Garnish over the guy who has quite a bit of skin in the game. I would not trust a retard over a market maker.

USGavin is not just slightly less qualified to propose these kinds of changes; he's so far out of the league as to not even be taken into consideration.

[traincarswreck]

Are we ready to relevate Helena Petrovna?

[RoadStress]

<eating lots of shit>

Hello Mircea Popescu shitsockpuppet account! Long time, no post. What happened today?

Which do you suppose will cost more? Keep in mind that from our point of view, as early adopters, with more than enough funds to pay fees for the rest of our lives, the fee will never be that expensive. Also keep in mind that it is possible to build a full node today for under 100 USD that will last for the rest of your life. These are facts. Whereas I cannot say with any degree of certainty that an unbounded block size will be affordable in the future. I have no idea how expensive hardware will become in the future when the dollar collapses.

Sure, I'm guilty of pulling a number out of my ass. But that number is purely anecdotal, whereas your numbers are of a potentially catastrophic nature.

You, same as the others anti-fork dudes are guilty of being chicken shit scared.

You state that you don't know stuff so you deny it! That is a bad attitude towards change and towards evolution. The denial is simply bad even if everything goes horribly bad. This is a Beta experiment. It's something new that never existed before and here you are denying everyone experimenting with this new stuff. Because this is what humans do and this is how we evolved. We never try anything new! We do not experiment! We get it right from the first time! Always!

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???

If this is the true mentality of yours and of everyone else opposing the fork then this is absurdly wrong!

[justusranvier]

It's difficult to understand the exponential nature of the network effect without a visual aide, since humans don't intuitively understand exponential functions.



There's too much potential value to be realized by a universal monetary ledger to imagine that some kind of fragmented solution will successfully compete.

[danielpbarron]

These are the numbers I am talking about -- the ones based on the assumption that hardware and bandwidth costs will always decrease. So you admit that you pulled them out of someone else's ass. That makes it better?

Okay buddy, tell you what, you can keep plugging your ears and stick to nutcase MP's numbers.

... And I will stick to the numbers from the chief core developer who has the majority's interests in mind, and more importantly can push code from GitHub.

Tell me in a few years if MP does anything or go anywhere!

I'm the one "plugging ears" ?? Please make an argument for me to hear, rather than pasting the same meme over and over!

You know who else claims to have "the majority's interests in mind" ? Every socialist regime ever! How has that worked so far? Anyone who claims this as a goal is exactly the wrong person to be a leader in bitcoin. Do you think GitHub matters? Why then is the latest version number getting stamped on less than 10% of the blocks? And even that number seems high -- I suspect someone is mining at a loss just to boost the number.

It's not good enough that MP created pretty much everything in bitcoin that's worth having!? He's already been at it for more than 2 years, but get back to me in another 2 -- I'll fill you in on what you missed out on.

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.

There's too much potential value to be realized by a universal monetary ledger to imagine that some kind of fragmented solution will successfully compete.

Who is talking about a "fragmented solution" except those in favor of a fork!? Stop being a coward rallying the derps on this irrelevant forum, and swing by #bitcoin-assets where you are inexplicably still on the lordship list.

[danielpbarron]

Once again, wall of text, too much MP, TL:DR.

Three possibilities:

1. You're a paid shill of MP (I understand that we all have to eat)
2. You are MP's sheeple because you're gullible (and I feel sorry for you)
3. You are MP's alt and literally nobody likes MP

It's a little of 1 and 2. And seriously, too long? Either admit you cannot best me in an argument, or admit you have brain damage. But don't keep feigning intelligence; liars are disgusting.

[Arghhh]

I admit I'm a paid shill.

It's a little of 1 and 2. And seriously, too long? Either admit you cannot best me in an argument, or admit you have brain damage. But don't keep feigning intelligence; liars are disgusting.

There is no argument with a brain dead shill like yourself. I'm always correct.

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. So long as you remain predictable as another needy ape flapping his gums, you are your own worst enemy and I won't have to lift a finger.

Plebeians like you just can't comprehend the bigger scheme of things, and therefore my intelligence isn't wasted on vegetables like yourself.


Checkmate.