Topic: ... - page 3. (Read 3472 times)

Please explain how increasing fees will allow the network to scale beyond 7 transactions per second?

(For the sake of argument I'm assuming that the current capacity limit is 7 TPS which seems to be a widely accepted number.)

Perhaps there was some ambiguity in my post.  That's not what I asked.  Those recent transactions may well have been spam, but if the network did grow to a point where it was filled by legitimate transactions, what figure in MB would you be willing to see the backlog reach before supporting larger blocks?

Yes, we will clearly continue to be able to fit 10 minutes worth of transactions from a global populace into two-thirds of a floppy disk for the rest of forever.   

Fees alone will not solve scalability.  If you honestly believe that then you don't understand this system as well as you claim to. 

Here's an honest question to those who advocate keeping a 1MB block:  how long would the backlog of transactions have to get before increasing the blocksize would become a viable option in your opinion?  I genuinely want to know just how far you're prepared to cripple the network to justify your agenda.

What can i expect from a guy who just pass opinions as facts Then got a nerve to keep repeating it when asked for proof?


Keep repeating shit does not make it truth. Got that?

You can assume i have dozen accounts all you want, only admins here can know the truth. Retard.

So in summary:

" i pulled shit out of my ass, put it in my mouth, then spit it out on screen for you guys to see ..."

The only reputation being destroyed is yours,... if its actually worth anything.

Oh yeah i'm also waiting for this, Mr. NOT SPREAD MISLEADING INFORMATION!


What a piece of shit.

wtf? you're the one that dont understand shit and spread BS.

lol why did you open your mouth to remove all doubt?

Except that it can only perfectly function at the rate of 3tx per second.

Please back up your claim with evidence about gavin being the culprit behind the recent spam attack on the bitcoin network.

Otherwise please STFU 

thanks

Great quote. I had not noticed it before. It sums up the whole blocksize issue really, it needs to be changed. The whole XT situation is now a different problem to the blocksize situation IMO. I want the blocksize increased, but I am totally against this incredibly dangerous way to try and change Bitcoins design.

the 1 MB blocksize was a temporary fix and now 3 devs are holding bitcoin back  


Should Bitcoin grow, even if the network changes its structure as a result?

   The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

    — Satoshi Nakamoto, July 2010

The second time it was changed it was done under Gavin, Satoshi wasn't around. Gavin just picked 1MB blocks and nobody complained. Nobody really cared, I remember when it happened clearly.

Yes of course Satoshi didn't just give him the alert keys, Gavin was appointed lead developer of Bitcoin Core by Satoshi - he gave him commit access to the Bitcoin Core source code repository,

The good news is everyone knows drama is like rocket fuel for Bitcoin so hopefully we have enough fuel to hit the moon

Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core, with a focus on upgrades to the peer to peer protocol. By running it you can opt in to providing the Bitcoin network with additional services beyond what Bitcoin Core provides.

Currently it contains the following additional changes:

+Support for larger blocks. XT has support for BIP 101 by Gavin Andresen, which schedules an increase from the one megabyte limit Bitcoin is now hitting.

+Relaying of double spends. Bitcoin Core will simply drop unconfirmed transactions that double spend other unconfirmed transactions, forcing merchants who want to know about them to connect to thousands of nodes in the hope of spotting them. This is unreliable, wastes resources and isn't feasible on mobile devices. Bitcoin XT incorporates work by Tom Harding and Gavin Andresen that relays the first observed double spend of a transaction. Additionally, it will highlight it in red in the user interface. Other wallets also have the opportunity to use the new information to alert the user that there is a fraud attempt against them.

+Support for querying the UTXO set given an outpoint. This is useful for apps that use partial transactions, such as the Lighthouse crowdfunding app. The feature allows a client to check that a partial SIGHASH_ANYONECANPAY transaction is correctly signed and by querying multiple nodes, build up some confidence that the output is not already spent.

+DNS seed changes: bitseed.xf2.org is removed as it no longer works, and seeds from Addy Yeow and Mike Hearn are (re)added to increase seed diversity and redundancy.


tl;dr it's just Bitcoin Core but with ability to have larger blocks, a bug fix, and two minor things that are useful for app developers.

I think we should do it the same way we did it the last 2 times we had to change the blocksize. People seem to forget we changed this before and it wasn't nearly as controversial of a change.

...