Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[Arghhh]

No, the mistake was on my part. His offer is 750 bitcoin today for 1`000 USGavincoin in the future, which is essentially the same as trading 750 post-fork bitcoin for 250 USGavincoin. I might be willing to offer you a better deal, but I will not agree to "refund" in the case that the fork doesn't happen. That's the whole point of making this kind of agreement. I'd be betting that the fork is not successful, whether by being crushed on the market or by not ever happening. If you're really interested in buying some discounted coins, you had better get in the WoT.

Pitchman!

Are you trying to be funny? I'm "pitching" the very thing you claim to support.

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts. Your market forces will just have to deal with larger blocks.

Who the fuck would give MP money, are you batshit insane?

[1715016086]

1715016086

[1715016086]

1715016086

[1715016086]

1715016086

[iCEBREAKER]

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts.

You should get out more.  Here, I'll help:

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

Exactly. 30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.

If you come within 1/3 (and probably much less) of maxing out your network connection, your ability to run Bitcoin is dependent on the government NOT telling your network providers to interfere with certain kinds of traffic.  A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.  If Bitcoin depends on this not happening on a fairly wide scale globally at some point in the future, then it is simply not a very strong solution to me.

[Arghhh]

And from the creator himself:

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

[Arghhh]

Worrying about the Bitcoin network's limit based on today's bandwidth limit is like worrying about torrenting Blu-rays in the days of dial-up.

[iCEBREAKER]

And from the creator himself:

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.

I fixed it for you.  No charge.   

[danielpbarron]

And from the creator himself:

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

Covered that one already:

IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible".

This is called "arguing to authority", and it tries to give pecuniary value to that only truly worthless article of all times and places : the esteem of the mob. This may work well in electing United States presidents, ensuring that "while the voting public knows best what it wants, it deserves to get it long and hard". Bitcoin specifically and deliberately does not work in this way.

Bitcoin is not a reflection of your hopes and aspirations, but a check on them. Bitcoin isn't here to make it easier for you to do what you want to do ; Bitcoin is here to make it trivial for others to prevent you from doing what you want to do every time that's stupid. The sooner you comprehend this fundamental difference between Bitcoin and "technology" especially in the "revolutionary & innovative" subsense of that nonsense, the better, for you.

Worrying about the Bitcoin network's limit based on today's bandwidth limit is like worrying about torrenting Blu-rays in the days of dial-up.

So let's change the limit.. before the bandwidth catches up to it? Wouldn't it be prudent to wait until bandwidth is actually increased? Or hard drives are actually cheaper? Not that I think the limit ever needs to rise, but shouldn't that be a concern to you?

[Arghhh]

And from the creator himself:

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

I was wrong, I'm sorry I was retarded

Do you really want to play that route? Because we can both do this.

I fixed yours as well, no charge

[R2D221]

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.

Out-of-context quote is out of context.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

Out-of-context quote is out of context.

Being taken out of its original context for resuse in another is what makes it a quote.  Have you never experienced the phenomenon of quoting before?     

The link is clickable for anyone who wants to pursue the source material.  No need to copypasta unneeded verbiage.

You can't refute Satoshi's point about users getting "increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices" so you snark instead.   

[R2D221]

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.

Out-of-context quote is out of context.

Being taken out of its original context for resuse in another is what makes it a quote.  Have you never experienced the phenomenon of quoting before?

The link is clickable for anyone who wants to pursue the source material.  No need to copypasta unneeded verbiage.

You can't refute Satoshi's point about users getting "increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices" so you snark instead.

No, actually no. The idea of a quote is that the same context applies to both scenarios, but here this is not happening. Satoshi was talking about BitDNS (Namecoin?), which has nothing to do with what we have here. Also, you removed the middle of the quote, which makes the two sentences connected in a different way.

If you're going to quote, then quote properly.

[R2D221]

Is it just me, or is the 1MB supporter consist of just 4-5 of MP's cronies like davout, icebreaker, MP alts, and that baron guy... and the 20MB supporter is EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE!?

It's fucking clear as daylight that even that 20% opposition in the poll is inflated by troll accounts.

OMFG.

No, you're right. I'm still in this discussion because I have nothing better to do.

[iCEBREAKER]

The idea of a quote is that the same context applies to both scenarios, but here this is not happening. Satoshi was talking about BitDNS (Namecoin?), which has nothing to do with what we have here. Also, you removed the middle of the quote, which makes the two sentences connected in a different way.

If you're going to quote, then quote properly.

Discourse in its original context is not a quote.  Excerpts *become* quotes when "quoted" in a different context. 

I'm shocked you find the concept of quoting so difficult.  How did you not learn this in English class?  Please read the MLA Handbook before presuming to correct my impeccable writing practices.

People quote Satoshi/books/movies/songs/poems/etc. all the time, for all manner of reasons.  You don't need to be performing in the Globe 500 years ago to quote Shakespeare.  That's how quotes work.

The brilliance of quotes is that they can somehow magically apply to many situations, not just their first appearance!  Neat, huh?

The link is clickable for anyone who wants to pursue the source material.  No need to copypasta unneeded verbiage when such proper citation and attribution are present.

You can't refute Satoshi's point about users getting "increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices" so you change the subject to nit-picking complaints about context.   

Whether the source of blockchain bloat is S.DICE, BitDNS, Counterparty, Blockstream, GavinCoins, or even (gasp!) sustained actual use, the point remains that in reaction to bloat...

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

[iCEBREAKER]

Is it just me, or is the 1MB supporter consist of just 4-5 of MP's cronies like davout, icebreaker, MP alts, and that baron guy... and the 20MB supporter is EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE!?

Except no one is proposing a 20MB fork. What Gavin supports is a 1400MB max block size :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CuOEM9uwO5w-RwWGCCZpVGVFwhHHHegxJZqTP5KyapI/edit?usp=sharing

Theymos and NewLiberty are "MP's cronies?"

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable.

There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network.

TIL!   

[CoinCidental]

No, the mistake was on my part. His offer is 750 bitcoin today for 1`000 USGavincoin in the future, which is essentially the same as trading 750 post-fork bitcoin for 250 USGavincoin. I might be willing to offer you a better deal, but I will not agree to "refund" in the case that the fork doesn't happen. That's the whole point of making this kind of agreement. I'd be betting that the fork is not successful, whether by being crushed on the market or by not ever happening. If you're really interested in buying some discounted coins, you had better get in the WoT.

Pitchman!

Are you trying to be funny? I'm "pitching" the very thing you claim to support.

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts. Your market forces will just have to deal with larger blocks.

Who the fuck would give MP money, are you batshit insane?

THIS  x 100 lol

How many people  even know who the fuck MP was/is ?
Or had ever heard of him before this forking argument ?

the blocks have to scale up for the system to remain usable

THE END

[iCEBREAKER]

the blocks have to scale up for the system to remain usable

OK fretful cupcake, because Bitcoin is antifragile, you can stop worrying it won't "remain usable."   

Blocks should scale up by representing more valuable transfers.  Blocks need to grow vertically, like skyscrapers making the best use of precious New York financial district real estate.

They don't need to, and shouldn't, sprawl out horizontally just 'because cheap hard drives.'  This is the difference between mere growth and actual development.

Blocks should be optimized, not subsidized.

Removing the 1MB constraint removes the incentive to optimize and subsidizes inefficient usage.

Not to mention the pernicious effect of excluding TOR/DSL/etc. and confining the BTC system to high speed connections and clearnets.

To "remain usable" in the event of ISP/.gov crackdowns, blocks must remain small enough to keep the network defensible, diffuse, and resilient.

[RoadStress]

MP & Co have tremendous financial (and personal) incentives to force the GigaBlock issue sooner than later, or at another time of their choosing.

I doubt that they have more financial incentive than 21e6 or BitFury or DigitalBTC. But yes please continue to suck MP's cock.

HashFail scammer!

IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible".

Stop quoting liars! Nobody here cares about what MP vomits! Maybe try to debate with your own words to make you look less like a dog who just follows commands.

Is it just me, or is the 1MB supporter consist of just 4-5 of MP's cronies like davout, icebreaker, MP alts, and that baron guy... and the 20MB supporter is EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE!?

It's fucking clear as daylight that even that 20% opposition in the poll is inflated by troll accounts.

OMFG.

Dogs who just follow orders blindly. Except davout who just likes it to refuse every argument without bringing nothing new to the discussion.

And in case anyone missed it: iCEBREAKER is a master scammer! DO NOT believe any word from him!

[CoinCidental]

MP & Co have tremendous financial (and personal) incentives to force the GigaBlock issue sooner than later, or at another time of their choosing.

I doubt that they have more financial incentive than 21e6 or BitFury or DigitalBTC. But yes please continue to suck MP's cock.

HashFail scammer!

IV. Satoshi himself envisioned much larger blocks.

The discussion of what "Satoshi himself" did or didn't do, meant or didn't mean, so on and so forth is about as interesting and discussing the Mormon "bible".

Stop quoting liars! Nobody here cares about what MP vomits! Maybe try to debate with your own words to make you look less like a dog who just follows commands.

Is it just me, or is the 1MB supporter consist of just 4-5 of MP's cronies like davout, icebreaker, MP alts, and that baron guy... and the 20MB supporter is EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE!?

It's fucking clear as daylight that even that 20% opposition in the poll is inflated by troll accounts.

OMFG.

Dogs who just follow orders blindly. Except davout who just likes it to refuse every argument without bringing nothing new to the discussion.

And in case anyone missed it: iCEBREAKER is a master scammer! DO NOT believe any word from him!

the 20MB blocks are happening regardless  ,5 homos like MP  icebreaker etc   flaming  this thread aint going to change anything.........

[R2D221]

Whether the source of blockchain bloat is S.DICE, BitDNS, Counterparty, Blockstream, GavinCoins, or even (gasp!) sustained actual use, the point remains that in reaction to bloat...

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

So, are you saying you are getting tyrannical because Satoshi said so?

People in this thread have claimed before that taking Satoshi's word as a fact is a fallacy of authority. But you seem to be doing exactly the same with this quote.

Also, I don't see how “getting tyrannical about limiting the size” will help users with small devices. You can't have a blockchain in your cellphone. That's a fact, a fact that will never change even if you get 1 KB blocks. So what kind of “small devices” are we talking about here?

No matter the size of the blocks, you will need a properly configured server to run a full node. Most people in the world aren't capable or don't have access to the technology of running a server (as astonishing as it sounds), so limiting the block size so that a fictional set of users who somehow have the resources to run a server, but not enough resources to run it with 20 MB blocks, is nonsensical to me.

[davout]

You can't have a blockchain in your cellphone. That's a fact, a fact that will never change even if you get 1 KB blocks.

Except you can.

No matter the size of the blocks, you will need a properly configured server to run a full node. Most people in the world aren't capable or don't have access to the technology of running a server (as astonishing as it sounds)

The same is true of technical skill, most people in the world are hardly technically literate enough to run MS Word.

[R2D221]

You can't have a blockchain in your cellphone. That's a fact, a fact that will never change even if you get 1 KB blocks.

Except you can.

OK, I use the wrong words. You SHOULDN'T run a full node in a cellphone. Its battery will run out quickly and your bill will be enormous for the data use. If you'll leave your cellphone connected in a spot, never to be moved, then just install a computer there. Don't do such ridiculousness.

No matter the size of the blocks, you will need a properly configured server to run a full node. Most people in the world aren't capable or don't have access to the technology of running a server (as astonishing as it sounds)

The same is true of technical skill, most people in the world are hardly technically literate enough to run MS Word.

I agree. Word isn't designed to be used by everyone. Its price is also something most people can't afford.