Topic: . - page 17. (Read 24756 times)

Is it April already? I must have overslept.

^This.

Or at least it's how it did work before the fee event.

The two major sources of under-utilization are empty blocks and pools which are using the 750k soft-limit. This is a small (but significant) fraction of blocks. The rest are mostly full and the network would definitely benefit from having some overhead to work with to avoid transaction backlogs.

Try to make them suffer for putting out empty blocks and they'll just fill them with dummy transactions.

Well ok. touche.   But if we all agree to go with 2MB, its no longer contentious.
I guess my point is that many of believe there's no reason (or not a very good one) NOT to go with 2 MB right now.  

Thank you, got it now.

No, Toomin's "final call" on Classic means he is in control of the code repository.  He might even figure out how to sign commits, eventually.

that's an interesting way of framing things. removing the threat of a contentious hard fork -- by implementing a contentious hard fork. brilliant.

meanwhile, Gavin stated that 2mb is "absurdly small." but since his first [maximalist] attempt to remove Core's commit access failed, he is now trying the minimalist approach to remove Core's commit access. it's not a "compromise" at all. he has turned all the bullshit "sky is falling" rhetoric about the urgency of 20mb blocks entirely on it's head. quite clearly, the end goal of such rhetoric was "anything that will remove Core's commit access" -- now he's just being transparent about it. 20mb was never urgent at all, obviously.

Thank you, clear answer. btw by final call on classic do you mean he has that much mining share he has a huge vote %?

yep 2mb rule allows real capacity buffer increase, ready for when miners are ready to expand

1mb segwit is temporary bait and switch of capacity increase(if they gain consensus instantly).. and then shortly after that, re-bloating up the 'saved' dataspace with Confidential transaction data (estimated at 250bytes per tx)

if they dont get consensus to allow miners to start churning out the new blocktype, then confidential transactions will fill up transaction data before people even see any benefit of segwits capacity adjustments.

its just easier and better to have the 2mb block limit set, and used as a buffer while miners continue making <1mb blocks .. that way when miners decide to move forward the community is ready.. rather than refusing to increase the buffer and creating chaos if the miners move before the community is ready


side-note
funny how icebreaker is arguing the politics of anything not blockR3am. but if anyone mentions the politics of blocksR3am, he defends them to the death and tells people not to talk about blockstR3am politics

tim swanson and Raja Ramachandran of R3.. at a PwC(blockstream) conference all talking about bitcoin

Strange indeed... the same people that cry most loudly against 'contentious hard forks' are the ones that seem to be against implementing a simple 2MB increase right now that would make the forking threat disappear.

Toomin has the "final call" in Classic.

He's trying to replace Bitcoin's existing governance structure and protocol with ones he is in control of.

So we call his vanity fork ToominCoin.

This is strange answer coming from a bitcointalk.org staff member. But you are the same person that said Satoshi's vision is irrelevant? Funny how well now I can remember you and your ways.

I thought 2MB blocksize would mean keeping Satoshi's protocol intact, whilst relieving full blocks, quelling the current international dispute, and at the same time leaving open the possibility for SegWit, and other Blockstream corporate-sponsored programs.

Dunno. Dolosity. People say things.

Don't know about that just wondered why Toomincoin turned into the new name for a bitcoin fork.

And what's this I keep hearing about Blockstream buying Bitcoin for 55 million dollars?
Are we supposed to say "Bitcoin^TM A Product Of Blockstream Corporation" or "Bitcoin^TM Brought to you by [The] Blockstream Corporation"?
So many questions...

some miners and a cryptsy thief apparently.

but toomin is dead, r3 is dead. but that doesnt stop people wanting more capacity without the corporate crap

i would correct lauda again and send him back to IRC to learn a thing or two once again. (not the first time he has been proved wrong)

but lauda is too deep in the blockstream rabbit hole to see daylight. so ill let him circle jerk his friends. and then laugh when confidential transactions re-bloat up the 1mb block after months of him saying segwit will cure the capacity issue.

he has no clue how temporary the roadmap is in expanding capacity and how long term it is at bloating the blocks with all the new op codes, and other variables.

goodluck to him

So who is behind the name Toomincoin?

FTFY again and will keep doing so until you learn the meaning of FTFY.

The crowd is not wise at all and the HF crowd is definitely not wiser than your average rational individual.

No; don't you come talking to me about investment. You keep talking about economic majority nonsense, yet there is no clear evidence of anything. If anything it has been proven that the majority is on the side of Core (data sampled by coin votes).

It doesn't require a long period of review, because it's being tested and another 2-3 months are more than enough. Have you done testing at 2 MB for a "long period"? Of course you haven't, then stop talking. Let me post this again since you've choose to avoid it:
The answer is a clear and indicative no. You can try to deny it, you can try to go around it, you can try to lie about it, but it won't change it. Aside from the increase in TPS that both proposals bring to the table, 2 MB block size brings nothing.

---

---

Regardless of how long this campaign persists, some systems just can't be fatigued.

You have quoted me falsely. It is wrong to do this. Please correct what you have done there.

I have never said this. To falsely quote somebody like this is libel, slander and fraud. Please refrain from doing this, I will remove this part of the message once you remove this quote from your post. If you do not remove this post then you are only proving to the good people here that you are lacking in sincerity and honour. Do the right thing, you are only discrediting yourself by engaging in such propaganda tactics.

You can still think for your self while acknowledging the greater wisdom of the crowd. To explain this to you more clearly, individuals should think for themselves, but larger organizations or in this case, a decentralized network, should not be governed by singular or even a group of individuals but by the wisdom of the crowd instead. If you disagree with this notion then I would seriously suggest that you are invested in the wrong cryptocurrency.

Increased TPS is what this blocksize debate is all about, for you to simply say that we should ignore that seems ridiculous to me in terms of choosing alternatives for scaling Bitcoin. I think that segwit is not finished, and once it is finished it will require a long period of peer review, critique and negotiation before it should even be implemented. We should not just trust Core that everything within the segwit is perfect, this type of work should not be rushed.

Because segwit will most likely take to long to be implemented and once implemented it would take even more time for its effects to be felt it makes more sense to increase the blocksize now, so that we do not encounter the economic change event that Jeff Garzick warned us about. That would not be good for adoption, even if you do not care about that, plenty of other people do. I understand at least what gives Bitcoin its value, and it is this value that increases its security, which increases its utility which in turn increases its value again, a virtuous cycle if you will.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

Therefore it does make more sense to implement an increased blocksize now, segwit can be implemented as a hard fork with an increased blocksize whenever it is ready, we should not wait and or gamble the future of Bitcoin on unfinished technology. We should not limit and restrict the organic increase in transaction volume. I do think that much of your thinking is in an ivory tower considering all of the things that you do not care about, things that I consider to be critical for Bitcoins long term success and survival.

You have further proven my points, while ignoring the contradictions I have pointed out. I consider my arguments to be more rational, but everyone can judge that for themselves and decide for themselves by reading both of our arguments while considering these questions based on their own beliefs.