Topic: . - page 2. (Read 24771 times)

So tell me, Bitcoin: The Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was designed to "cut out third party middleman (e.g. Visa)" out of WHAT?
Clearly not shopping, because a single suburban shopping mall would overload the network, so it's not suitable for shopping.
At least, according to you.


Centralized? How des letting Bitcoin grow turn into centralization?

the comparison between bitcoin and a shopping mall is arbitrary. bitcoin is not just a payment channel. it was intended to cut out third party trust (e.g. Visa), and it does that by being a clunky, redundant dinosaur. it's not pretty but it's how decentralization works. not really comparable to centralized systems. 

since Visa is the central agent that enforces its rules, users could never trust Visa to keep transactions irreversible; nothing enforces that. and they are still a central point of failure.


what do you mean? this debate has been going on nearly all the way back to bitcoin's inception. Core didn't believe a hard fork increase was necessary back then, or now. that's not an illegitimate position just because some people disagree.


Visa's great. credit cards are fucking fantastic. i get fat cash back on all my purchases. i say, let's keep using Visa cuz it's fucking great. and let's keep bitcoin from turning into a centralized system like Visa, because that defeats the purpose.

What's arbitrary? The fact that Bitcoin, in its present state, could be overloaded by a single suburban shopping mall? Not sure I understand.
Far as reversed payments, that's the reason people *use* Visa: so that they *could* charge back if  shit goes south.
Chargeback is not something intrinsic to fiat money -- Visa could make transactions as irreversible as Bitcoin, but it doesn't, because smart


So, after stalling and pretending the problem didn't exist for a year, segwit is suddenly gonna be ready to solve it? Would that be In Two Weeks^TM?


Kids no longer in the back seat. Got sick of the bullshit & bailed. Riding with Visa nao.

FUD and lies? i disagree, but opinions are like assholes. we all got em. XT and Classic proponents have raised some points, and Core and much of the community vehemently disagrees. = contention.


the difference is you are arguing to change the consensus rules, so the burden is on you to provide evidence for why. i was merely quipping that i haven't seen evidence that this supposedly urgent problem is urgent, nor a problem.

blocks aren't actually full on average, nor fees prohibitive. so it seems to me that we could integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client before the network actually clogs up (if it is going to).

Sure, but as you see, their communication method is FUD and lies. That bothers me.

Beyond that: all the reasons proponents of XT and Classic raise.


Seems to meet the same stringent terms you allow yourself. But yes, it's anecdotal evidence. One got stuck for four days before the network unclogged and I received it. An integrated fee calculator is something you integrate before the network clogs up. As are alternate solutions to the block size problem. Or you simply bump up the block size limit.

that puts trust in miners not to prematurely fork before the rest of the network has updated. if you're so sure they won't do that, why don't we just enforce it with code? same outcome without putting trust into miners not to break the network.

its called a buffer..

by having the setting.. but miners never making a block over 1mb for multiple reasons causes no harm

but by not having the setting, should miners reach a majority and then after reaching the majority, decide to start making blocks more then 1mb. there would be problems..

EG when everyone had a 1mb limit there were no issues when miners were only making 0.25btc in 2009-2011.. never a problem when miners were making blocks only 0.5mb upto 2013..
but imagine if core only had the limit was only 0.1mb. and every couple years this debate had to be had where core refused to increase the buffer to cope with natural growth until a year of arguments were made.

remember miners are not going to start pumping out 1.999mb blocks instantly. they would dip their toe in the water with 1.005mb and slowly grow after time. so its not a nuclear button to increase the capacity buffer limit.

no where in the code does it force miners to make blocks at 1.999mb nor more than 0.999mb.. its upto the miners how much they will grow and how fast. and its logical that they are not going to strain themselves 2fold straight away. it would be slow and steady.

core also want to be anal by making a proposal for 1.5mb which is just a anal gesture of poking the bear for a year before another year long debate goes on to get them to try upping the buffer..

its far easier to have 2mb and let miners manage the slow growth, rather than letting core dominate the network with their limitations.

why? seems kinda arbitrary. is that compared to centralized systems like Visa? they don't offer the same security that bitcoin does. centralization failure, reversible payments.

anyway, Core's plan increases capacity via segwit, and intends to increase the block size limit for more capacity once the technical problems re bandwidth are addressed. they've proposed how to address those too.

the kids may be screaming in the back seat, but we just aren't there yet.

well that's anecdotal and dependent on how you define nerds. not very reliable

anyway, what happened? nothing. an unconfirmed transaction with insufficient fees went unconfirmed. and no one lost anything (unless you accept zero confirmations as a valid payment, which no one should be doing)

perhaps a solution is to integrate an optimal fee mechanism into the client.

As I understand it, some still cling to the "Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" pipe dream.
At 3tps, Bitcoin could be "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System For An Average Shopping Mall."

ah okay. so it's simply 1MB vs. 2MB. if Core joins the party, and everyone agrees to wait for miner consensus before forking, it wouldn't be contentious. that's fine with me.

but why should Core do that? just to make the "must-fork-now" camp happy? the basis for the disagreement is technical.

I've gotten txs stuck when other people send to me. And they're nerds. Which means a) if they can't get it right, a lot of others will fail b) you can't instruct them on something they think they know how to do.