Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[danielpbarron]

We'll see it start to do much now that the limit is actually being reached. In the process of syncing the block chain, the first three fourths of the blocks take up one third of the hard drive space; that means one fourth of all the blocks take up two thirds of the disk space. Thanks to the limit, these ratios will begin to even out.

You forget to say once the limit is reached, Bitcoin popularity (crypto market share) will start to decline pretty fast. Basically only limited transactions can be included in the block, if more transactions are required by users, some have never to be included. Basically it will be easier to use different coin than feeling the hours/days/never confirmed transactions pain with 1MB Bitcoin

Popularity among who? Maybe the redditarded change tipping hammer lickers won't be interested anymore, but I don't see the future market makers of the world shying away just because they have to start paying a fee to use censor-proof inflation-proof perfectly fungible money.

If it's "easier to use different coin" then go do that; we won't miss you. Actually that's what USGavin is proposing anyway; the fork creates an altcoin.

We oppose this fork primarily because we see bitcoin as a challenge to bad money and bad governments. We don't see bitcoin as a fancier way to do the same old things. As it runs now, bitcoin is exactly what we want. As it runs now, bitcoin is sound money that governments cannot control. Yes, that means the poor will not have easy access. No, that's not a problem; nice things are not for the poor. Nice things have a cost, and poor people can't pay by the very definition of them being poor.

They don't have to all be poor though! Being a billionaire has never been so cheap as it is today! 10 bitcoin is 1 billion satoshi (the true unit of account recorded in blocks). That's like 3k USD right now.

First you say that Bitcoin is not for the poor, but then you say that it's very easy to be not poor. So, while not technically a contradiction, this leads to the conclusion that Bitcoin is for everyone (which contrasts with “Bitcoin is not for the poor”). So, which is it?

Also, saying that “Being a billionaire has never been so cheap” is just oxymoronic, unless your definition of “billionaire” doesn't actually involve being rich. If it's so, then being a billionaire isn't actually impressive or something that people would want or desire.

There is an apparently contradictory statement in my post, but that wasn't even it. As everyone tries to buy their billion satoshi, the price will rise and it will become difficult. So it is not for everyone, and it is not a contradiction.

[1714612192]

1714612192

[adworker]

We'll see it start to do much now that the limit is actually being reached. In the process of syncing the block chain, the first three fourths of the blocks take up one third of the hard drive space; that means one fourth of all the blocks take up two thirds of the disk space. Thanks to the limit, these ratios will begin to even out.

You forget to say once the limit is reached, Bitcoin popularity (crypto market share) will start to decline pretty fast. Basically only limited transactions can be included in the block, if more transactions are required by users, some have never to be included. Basically it will be easier to use different coin than feeling the hours/days/never confirmed transactions pain with 1MB Bitcoin

Popularity among who? Maybe the redditarded change tipping hammer lickers won't be interested anymore, but I don't see the future market makers of the world shying away just because they have to start paying a fee to use censor-proof inflation-proof perfectly fungible money.

If it's "easier to use different coin" then go do that; we won't miss you. Actually that's what USGavin is proposing anyway; the fork creates an altcoin.

No, im pretty sure the 20 MB (or whatever) limit will be active when at least 95% of miners agree. And such hard fork happened already and we still call it Bitcoin not alt coin.

If your really serious about Bitcoin being most popular crypto in future as well, please update to average computer/internet and you will be able to use full node after the planned Bitcoin limit improvement as usual.

[Lauda]

It's not just storage; there is bandwidth, cpu, and RAM to take into consideration.

We oppose this fork primarily because we see bitcoin as a challenge to bad money and bad governments. We don't see bitcoin as a fancier way to do the same old things. As it runs now, bitcoin is exactly what we want. As it runs now, bitcoin is sound money that governments cannot control. Yes, that means the poor will not have easy access. No, that's not a problem; nice things are not for the poor. Nice things have a cost, and poor people can't pay by the very definition of them being poor.

They don't have to all be poor though! Being a billionaire has never been so cheap as it is today! 10 bitcoin is 1 billion satoshi (the true unit of account recorded in blocks). That's like 3k USD right now.

No, I'm not wrong. Mainly because anything that comes from M.P. should be considered invalid.
@Bold: Who in the name of all that is, told you that what you guys want matters? What made you think that you can decide?

I'd rather trust Gavin than someone who sees bitcoin, as another system for a elite group.

Before anyone else screams it, the issue seems to be bandwidth, not storage. I still think you can easily acquire more bandwidth, though.

Although that is true, one can't really expect people that haven't updated their systems in ages (or have very bad internet) to use Bitcoin. Their systems probably have many flaws, it would not be smart to run Bitcoin, security- wise.

[hdbuck]

Gavin is giving away bitcoin to the same elite group that fucked up the financial system. Duuh

[danielpbarron]

We'll see it start to do much now that the limit is actually being reached. In the process of syncing the block chain, the first three fourths of the blocks take up one third of the hard drive space; that means one fourth of all the blocks take up two thirds of the disk space. Thanks to the limit, these ratios will begin to even out.

You forget to say once the limit is reached, Bitcoin popularity (crypto market share) will start to decline pretty fast. Basically only limited transactions can be included in the block, if more transactions are required by users, some have never to be included. Basically it will be easier to use different coin than feeling the hours/days/never confirmed transactions pain with 1MB Bitcoin

Popularity among who? Maybe the redditarded change tipping hammer lickers won't be interested anymore, but I don't see the future market makers of the world shying away just because they have to start paying a fee to use censor-proof inflation-proof perfectly fungible money.

If it's "easier to use different coin" then go do that; we won't miss you. Actually that's what USGavin is proposing anyway; the fork creates an altcoin.

No, im pretty sure the 20 MB (or whatever) limit will be active when at least 95% of miners agree. And such hard fork happened already and we still call it Bitcoin not alt coin.

If your really serious about Bitcoin being most popular crypto in future as well, please update to average computer/internet and you will be able to use full node after the planned Bitcoin limit improvement as usual.

No I will not update, and screw you for suggesting the problem is with me.

mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you know, people have been trained to believe in this "upgrade and everything's gonna be better" mantra.
mircea_popescu: worst fucking idea ever. but it's so much like "progress", and "what the consumers should come to expect"
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: it's the direct effect of shitgnomism where 'the doctor healed the patient's ear, but did poke out an eye, i fear'

The current version is called bitcoin not because "the miners" decided. It costs nothing to put a "version 4" label on your blocks; it costs quite a bit to find out nobody will buy your fake scam coins that you mistakenly think are the real thing.

And the thing you are referring to wasn't a hard fork; it was a "soft fork." The difference being that the rules became more strict rather than less strict. Not that I'm saying it's acceptable to adopt a soft fork proposed by UnSavory Garnish.

No, I'm not wrong. Mainly because anything that comes from M.P. should be considered invalid.
@Bold: Who in the name of all that is, told you that what you guys want matters? What made you think that you can decide?

I'd rather trust Gavin than someone who sees bitcoin, as another system for a elite group.

Before anyone else screams it, the issue seems to be bandwidth, not storage. I still think you can easily acquire more bandwidth, though.

Although that is true, one can't really expect people that haven't updated systems in years (or very bad internet) to use Bitcoin. Their systems probably have many flaws, it would not be smart to run Bitcoin, security- wise.

There's that call to upgrade again! See my comments above.

What makes us think we can decide? I could ask you the same thing. You seem to think that talking about bitcoin makes you a part of it. I think that I'm a part of bitcoin because I'm in the WoT.

Who? Anyone who sees the value in building trusted online relationships and is willing to put in the effort to grow said relationships. WoT has uses within and without Bitcoin, though it could be argued that the reverse isn’t true.

You'd rather trust the guy who scared off satoshi by talking to the CIA? Don't hate the elites; be the elites. The window is still open.

[Buffer Overflow]

You seem to think that talking about bitcoin makes you a part of it. I think that I'm a part of bitcoin because I'm in the WoT.

This only works if the WoT is considered part of bitcoin.
If not (as the comments in the thread seem to suggest) then you are just part of the WoT and it ends there.

[danielpbarron]

You seem to think that talking about bitcoin makes you a part of it. I think that I'm a part of bitcoin because I'm in the WoT.

This only works if the WoT is considered part of bitcoin.
If not (as the comments in the thread seem to suggest) then you are just part of the WoT and it ends there.

That's fine. Cows don't see the value in eating steak, and derps don't see the value in building trusted online relationships. Keep on "suggesting" with "comments" and see if it'll put food on your plate.

[yampi]

Because charts are undeniable sources of absolute truth.

[tvbcof]

Gavin is giving away bitcoin to the same elite group that fucked up the financial system. Duuh

The guy is a 'normal'.  He ultimately places his confidence in the inherent and relative 'goodness' of the establishment.  Part of the reason for this is that he rejects even considering alternate hypotheses which vary from mainstream conceptions of reality.  They are immediately labeled 'conspiracy theories' and thus can safely be rejected out of hand.  Gavin and most of the people who brought resources (financial, technical, etc) to the table are trained in the same way and cut from the same cloth.  Their reasons for getting involved in the first place vary, but they can be relied upon to follow certain fairly well directed paths as they navigate through the wilderness.

[Buffer Overflow]

You seem to think that talking about bitcoin makes you a part of it. I think that I'm a part of bitcoin because I'm in the WoT.

This only works if the WoT is considered part of bitcoin.
If not (as the comments in the thread seem to suggest) then you are just part of the WoT and it ends there.

That's fine. Cows don't see the value in eating steak, and derps don't see the value in building trusted online relationships. Keep on "suggesting" with "comments" and see if it'll put food on your plate.

This is a strawman. I never suggested the WoT had no value.

[Lauda]

You seem to think that talking about bitcoin makes you a part of it. I think that I'm a part of bitcoin because I'm in the WoT.

This only works if the WoT is considered part of bitcoin.
If not (as the comments in the thread seem to suggest) then you are just part of the WoT and it ends there.

Exactly. I myself don't consider it part of Bitcoin. Why would it be part of Bitcoin, it was release and written about quite some time before Bitcoin came to be.
To answer his assumption, no I do not consider myself part of Bitcoin, at all. That's just a weak attempt to insidiously attack my persona.

While WoT indeed has so much value, some people don't have time to be a part of those things. So these people aren't part of Bitcoin in any way, okay.  

Gavin and most of the people who brought resources (financial, technical, etc) to the table are trained in the same way and cut from the same cloth.  Their reasons for getting involved in the first place vary, but they can be relied upon to follow certain fairly well directed paths as they navigate through the wilderness.

[adworker]

Requirements to upgrade to average computer/internet to run full node is not unreasonable. What happens with Bitcoin if the 1 MB limit is in place in the comming 3-10 years is about the same as what happens in the comming 1 year when you change the limit to 0.1 MB today. Go figure...

[Lauda]

In this world of 4k streaming, advocating the idea of 1MB blocksize limit is analogous to advocating 240p.

There's only five losers in this thread who would advocate such a thing and all of them are MP or part of his Scooby gang.

Very nicely said. Looking at the current demand for storage/bandwidth for just about anything, one would easily conclude that the 1MB limit is ridiculous (in terms of requirements). Even a single picture takes 3-4MB on the newest smartphones. Like previously said, this band just want Bitcoin as an elitist system that's about it.
Thinking about it, I ask myself: Who are we to exclude everyone else? Interestingly WD just announced a 10TB HDD.

[danielpbarron]

To answer his assumption, no I do not consider myself part of Bitcoin, at all. That's just a weak attempt to insidiously attack my persona.

Then why are you telling us how it should be?

[cbeast]

In this world of 4k streaming, advocating the idea of 1MB blocksize limit is analogous to advocating 240p.

Don't give them any ideas. They may corner the market on tube TVs.

[Lauda]

To answer his assumption, no I do not consider myself part of Bitcoin, at all. That's just a weak attempt to insidiously attack my persona.

Then why are you telling us how it should be?

If random people like you and MP can do it, a random person like me can as well.

Don't give them any ideas. They may corner the market on tube TVs.

Honestly this wouldn't surprise me. MP as a CEO would make even Google crash. 

[R2D221]

Think this thread is dead.

I agree.

speak like we want 1mb Bitcoin forever

But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.

[DooMAD]

Think this thread is dead.

I agree.

speak like we want 1mb Bitcoin forever

But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.

For purely selfish reasons.  Which they've admitted multiple times.  They have no justification other than greed, arrogance and delusions of grandeur.  It couldn't be more obvious and the vast majority will support the fork because of that.

[davout]

But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.

Which ones?

[numismatist]

Think this thread is dead.

I agree.

speak like we want 1mb Bitcoin forever

But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.

For purely selfish reasons.  Which they've admitted multiple times.  They have no justification other than greed, arrogance and delusions of grandeur.  It couldn't be more obvious and the vast majority will support the fork because of that.

Looking forward for a democratic decision on the matter. On my opinion, hard coded limits have no place in software, anywhere. Could you still live on 64kb ?