Topic: . - page 10. (Read 24756 times)

I got a 4 TB HDD drive. But I also got a few small SSDs.

I got an old dual quad core server, so that's 8 cores, or 16 threads with hyper-threading. I think that's the trend now, get more cores. New server processors come with 12 cores or more. I've seen 18, and I'm sure I read somewhere about a 64 core Intel Xeon. Has 48 GB of RAM.

That's too much for a desktop, but that's nothing compared to servers of today in 2016 (they have 128 or 256 GB of RAM, and root hint DNS servers are supposedly 4 TB of RAM.)

Everybody get gigabit networks now. Matter of time before more people are on gigabit internet speeds as well.

Comparing apples and oranges as always. Find a better analogy, this one doesn't work.

Do you really think that something would change with Classic? People seem to this that it would be more 'democratic' because of Consider.it; quite a lovely joke indeed.

Re: 'epic commentary' by spazo.

Complete non sequitor. 

2mb being an average page size means its a small payload.
Got nothing to do with gox or security whatsoever.

When your 1GB hard drive is full, you don't buy 1.1 GB hard drive, you buy 2GB or 3GB hard drive
When your 1Ghz CPU is too slow, you don't buy 1.1Ghz CPU, you buy 2-3Ghz CPU
 (of course recent years CPU upgrade only gives you about 20% increase in performance so I have not upgraded for years, therefore the block size bump can be dangerous without sigop limitation )
When your 1MBps Network is too slow, you don't buy 1.1Mbps, you increase to 10Mbps

Any upgrade less than 2x is a maintenance release

"When it is needed" - there is always catch, isnt it?  Some might argue it will never be needed as fee market and decentralization is preffered. Do you realy want handfull of Core developers have the ultimate power to decide when it is needed, which is not purely technical question but much more economical one, no mater what consequences to whole 6-7 Billion Bitcoin economy decision of handfull Core developers might become?

making it hard rule 1.1mb.. will cause headaches because people will need to keep updating and patching their programs every time the threshold needs to change..

its much better to hav the 2mb setting (as a buffer) and then let the miners decided how deep they dip their toe in the water.

much like in 2013 where the 1mb setting was a buffer and miners were only making 500k blocks and slowly increasing over 3 years.. no one needed to change settings every 100k....

when you realise a 2mb is not an act of warr forcing miners to make 1.99mb.. but is instead a buffer to allow headroom and breathing space for miners to start expanding at their own pace. you will see that miners will try doing little things like 1.005mb blocks to test out processing time, hashtime and propogation time to see it the timing is still good enough to win blocks without risk. while the hard rule of 2000000 justs there as a buffer so that users dont have to endlessly upgrade/patch

i personally thinnk the network can cope with alot more than 2mb.. but its the community as a whole that thinks 2mb is a safe minimum to allow lots of head space for expansion, without monthly patches

and things like hard rules of 1.1mb or 1.5mb are just wasted gestures that are just going to prolong the debate as they do not offer any breathing space,

As much fun as it is to debate, er, spiritedly, really, could we just try 1.1MB and see?  I'm not even asking for 1.2MB or anything larger until after we see.  If 1.1MB is an utter disaster then we can go back to 1MB, right?  Also, independently, please do get SegWit figured out and tested thoroughly.

I do have a financial stake worthy (at least to some) of consideration.

Victory shall be sweet...
To your throes there'll be no end, and to your torment -- no cessation!

Satoshi never said that block size limit was temporary measure. He only said that it can be increased when needed, thats exactly position of core devs and me personally (note he never said it should be removed).

Actually Satoshi seemed to be very much against block size bloat and did not even want namecoin on top of bitcoin.


Core developers are more inline with "Satoshi's vision" then Gavin, who wants to get rid of block limit altogether.

Not that I think its a valid argument, but I hate how Hearn and big-blockers try to hijack Satoshi and claim to speak for him.

And you do that by making a statement along the lines of "The keys of the kingdom to toomim"?

How is that a valid argument on a topic titled "Gavin proposes BIP for 2Mb...." (paraphrased) ?

I think you are punking me. You punking me?

Lying about what? You made an argument based on personal insults, so I called it ad hominem.

That you refuse to address the arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. Feel free to re-read the last few pages.

And there you go again, trying to appear correct by projecting "failure" on Core. Have you ever made an argument that wasn't based on personal attacks? Legit question.


It doesn't take temerity to call someone out for ignoring every argument made in the thread and responding with cheap, personal attacks.

And again, here you are with more cheap, personal attacks. Why you so mad all the time?


Thank you for your concern, though I wish you'd stop droning on about my personal affairs. You can make whatever assumptions you want about my base cost. Call me the biggest bagholder in bitcoin, I don't mind. But that doesn't make Gavin any more right or Core devs any more wrong, hence me calling you out for making irrelevant personal attacks.

And here you are, again, repeating the personal attack.


No offense taken. But where I come from, implying something rather than saying it outright doesn't get you off the hook. I just wanted to point out your [repeated] use of ad hominem to show that you are using a dishonest form of argument. Just stating facts. Wouldn't want newbies to be fooled by fallacious arguments.

If we were in the Wall Observer thread, I'd say "fair game" but we're trying to discuss the likelihood of a chain fork and what level of risk in that context is justifiable.

I didn't actually say that. I merely postulated that your butthurt towards certain personalities might be due to you being a big looser from the ATH.

No offense was meant.   
 

You just cant stop lying, can you?

I dont think you have made any substantive technical arguments in this case, other than trotting out the usual failed assertions of Core. Everything is "toomim this" and "Gavin that." blah blah.

And then you have the temerity to play the ad-hom card? Oh, please, stop being such a whiney bitch,and just accept when you are called out.

I wont even go into your "Well I was in bitcoin when it was $0.30" prattle, because we know you weren't. If you were, then your earlier posts would have been very different.  It like the people who say they were at the fist Nirvana gig - I believe there are now officially 21,320 people who say they were at the venue which only held 300.  

Nice try.  And again, SFYL.

edit: I haven't read posts after the one I cited above, so if you have posted a proof for p=np in the meantime, I was not aware of it.

I shouldn't; albeit I told you nothing but :"there's more to the story". Neither have I made any claims, nor baited anyone with nonsense.

You can't. The answer is: everyone who signed the roadmap as an example. Of course you can 'claim' that if you call people like P. Rizun "experts".  

How is this relevant; when did I talk about confidential transactions? They aren't implemented in Bitcoin.

IIRC it is implemented in Liquid and that does not matter to us, unless you're using it. So basically you're saying that the people who are working on Segwit are smarter than everyone else who has reviewed the code so far; much smarter so that they could implant a control mechanism that nobody would recognize? Good luck with that.

I don't have any direct contact with anyone from the team, nor would my word help you much. If you want to see something in Bitcoin, then create a BIP and start coding.

Well, that depends how it pans out.

Yes, dumping is a realistic option. So is double spending on one chain vs. the other. Or some combination. It will be interesting if the hard fork breaks consensus, I'll say that much.

That's an interesting assumption you've made about me. If I were holding a large number of bitcoins, does that mean my opinion holds less weight? That my interests should be ignored? I'm curious what this sort of personal comment is supposed to prove.

Bolding emphasis mine -- in order for bitcoin to remain censorship-free it must retain its p2p (i.e. decentralized) qualities. This isn't about what one person or another believes bitcoin should be worth; that is up to the market. That's why bitcoin isn't comparable to the yen as Gavin suggests; like gold or other commodities, its supply cannot be externally inflated or deflated, just as it allows the movement of money without restrictions. We must thank decentralization for these features.

The debate is first and foremost about preventing bandwidth pressures from encouraging too much node centralization, as block size is directly related to nodes' bandwidth requirements and nodes have been in perpetual decline as block size has increased over time. Once nodes are sufficiently centralized, any number of bad (or nefarious) scenarios can occur -- from persistent regional feather forks to Sybil attacks (therefore censorship of transactions).


It's an interesting theory, but how can you be sure that Blockstream's plan is to throttle transactions on the mainchain? If that were true, and Core is controlled by Blockstream as you suggest:

Why release Segwit at all?--why allow for more mainchain throughput? Why not lobby for smaller blocks?
Why is Matt Corallo, Blockstream employee, suggesting a block size limit increase to 1.5MB?
Why was Adam Back, Blockstream Co-founder, suggesting in summer 2015 to increase the block size limit to 8MB over 4 years?
Why does Core's scalability roadmap include capacity increases, which further include block size limit increases?
Why are only 7 of 93 people that are credited in the upcoming release working for Blockstream? The lead maintainer doesn't work for Blockstream, and neither do other big names like Peter Todd or Jeff Garzik or Luke Dashjr.


Do note the epic meta commentary by Satoshi Nick Szabo.

What exactly have Pieter Wuille, Gregory Maxwell and Matt Corallo done that has so obviously marked Blockstream and Core as evil, small blockist scum?

What proof do you have of "exorbitant fees" (and shouldn't that be qualified by the cost of keeping the system robust and decentralized, rather than using it purely as a pejorative)?

I don't think this should be about Satoshi's vision, but if it were, I don't think anything in Core's capacity roadmap goes against the whitepaper, nor his comments that the block size limit was only a temporary measure. In any case, how are Gavin's ideas more in line with Satoshi's vision? He's shown very little concern for centralization concerns and his technical responses to such criticisms have been wholly uncompelling. That's a problem when it comes to Satoshi's vision of a p2p (decentralized) ledger.

You'll probably be DUMPING!!! 

Ok, but then you'll have to take some of the responsibility for the bumpy ride.

BtcDrak and Peter Todd have plenty of experience with alts. Maybe they can join Luke-Jr on his JeebusCoin and you can all GPU a bit.

That'll be cute.

This is all people were asking for!
Did it really take 23 pages in a thread to hear you agree with a proposal?
Since you are such a staunch Core supporter, perhaps you can suggest it to the team and break down these divisive walls!

And when you're on the wrong side of the 75%... rabble rabble rabble!

Two can play at that game.

In all seriousness, as I've said, a majority of hashpower is only good enough to trigger the fork. You can assume that everyone will immediately update to Classic nodes and therefore that only one chain will survive. But that's unlikely. I sure won't be updating. Let's see how it pans out.