Satoshi's vision is irrelevant.
Honestly never thought I'd hear that statement from a bitcointalk staff member.
Topic: . - page 21. (Read 24756 times)
Segwit is not ready now, this statement is true. You are attempting to twist the truth. I do not think we should bet the future of Bitcoin on unfinished technology.
Neither is 2 MB. Do we have experience with that? No. Nobody is betting any future on anything; Bitcoin works regardless of the block size.If that was true, Core could increase the blocksize limit to two megabytes now, and resolve this entire debate. Instead of expecting us to "trust" them to do it at a unspecified time, while at the same time realizing they have a conflict of interest to keep the blocksize small and have a strong ideology to not increase the blocksize, contrary to Satoshi's vision.
Satoshi's vision is irrelevant. Why would they do that? There isn't enough consensus for 2 MB. Yes that is how Bitcoin works. It might seem counter intuitive from an engineering perspective, but from the perspective of freedom and decentralization it is great.
This has nothing do to with decentralization and will end up centralizing Bitcoin which is obviously one of the underlying goals behind both BU and Classic. Brain washed? Bitcoin Core approves SegWit blocks up to 4 MB are ok and no problem for decentralization. Gosh, SegWit is not magic here, and Bitcoin Core supporting up to 4 MB SegWit blocks invalidate every one of your argument here...
2 MB can be achieved now with Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Classic will be released soon as well.
There's a Segwit test-net. Again, no experience with a 2 MB block size.I do not think consensus is even necessary, this I know is a technical fact. Satoshi's vision is very relevant that does not mean he had to be right, I just happen to agree.
Then why are you trying to split the network in the sake of "decentralization" and underlying visions of nonsense? Fork off now and the market will move to the implementation if the economic majority agrees with you, will it not?Based on what? Bitcoin unlimited is very much is in the spirit of decentralization. Bitcoin Classic can represent a community take over, reflecting the will of the economic majority.
Based on logic and common sense. Storing hundreds of GB of video and other useless data that nobody needs nor wants on their node is not going to centralize the network? I will be the first to exit the decentralization process shall that happen. Classic represents nothing but a bad attempt of a takeover. 
Segwit is not ready now, this statement is true. You are attempting to twist the truth. I do not think we should bet the future of Bitcoin on unfinished technology.
Neither is 2 MB. Do we have experience with that? No. Nobody is betting any future on anything; Bitcoin works regardless of the block size.If that was true, Core could increase the blocksize limit to two megabytes now, and resolve this entire debate. Instead of expecting us to "trust" them to do it at a unspecified time, while at the same time realizing they have a conflict of interest to keep the blocksize small and have a strong ideology to not increase the blocksize, contrary to Satoshi's vision.
Satoshi's vision is irrelevant. Why would they do that? There isn't enough consensus for 2 MB.Yes that is how Bitcoin works. It might seem counter intuitive from an engineering perspective, but from the perspective of freedom and decentralization it is great.
This has nothing do to with decentralization and will end up centralizing Bitcoin which is obviously one of the underlying goals behind both BU and Classic. http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles
Freedom has its dark side as well, over all, I would argue that it is still worth it. For the good of the greater civilization and by creating more ideal environments for the self development of the individual.
Welcome to the dark side Luke, where we don't try to destroy Bitcoin by bloating it all "for the good of the greater civilization". 
Segwit is not ready now, this statement is true. You are attempting to twist the truth. I do not think we should bet the future of Bitcoin on unfinished technology.
Neither is 2 MB. Do we have experience with that? No. Nobody is betting any future on anything; Bitcoin works regardless of the block size.If that was true, Core could increase the blocksize limit to two megabytes now, and resolve this entire debate. Instead of expecting us to "trust" them to do it at a unspecified time, while at the same time realizing they have a conflict of interest to keep the blocksize small and have a strong ideology to not increase the blocksize, contrary to Satoshi's vision.
Satoshi's vision is irrelevant. Why would they do that? There isn't enough consensus for 2 MB. Yes that is how Bitcoin works. It might seem counter intuitive from an engineering perspective, but from the perspective of freedom and decentralization it is great.
This has nothing do to with decentralization and will end up centralizing Bitcoin which is obviously one of the underlying goals behind both BU and Classic. My answer is that whatever transactions the miners choose to include in the blocks have sufficient utility to be included.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
So if I decide that my posts should be included on the blockchain, and a miner decides that a few Satoshi will reward hie enough to include them in a number of blocks, then that will be of benefit to Bitcoin. Even though every node will have to store them forever.
Yes, its the minner who risking real Bitcoins because of the orphan risks, so miners have incentive to act economically and not grow the blocksizes too much unless it is worth it.
Nodes have to download the block and process it, but its up to you if you want store all blocks for new nodes, and in future even if you store only random 1% of all blocks and there are thousands of nodes, the full blockchain can be downloaded by new nodes without a problem anyway - like torrents work.
It is better when miners and market decide the blocksizes than having centralized planned decision (basically another FED ? - wait, much worse because coders deciding now, not economy specialists).
... If the load or legal problems that come from use for other applications diminish Bitcoin's utility as digital cash then these activities are effectively stealing from all the people who own Bitcoins.
You mean this sort of thing? http://www.dailydot.com/business/bitcoin-child-porn-transaction-code/
I have been arguing on these forums extensively, you can not say that I do not have a proper argument, the underlying vision between Core and alternatives like Classic and Unlimited are very far apart, there is a divergence of vision. I choose for a two megabyte increase now because it is less complicated then segwit, ideally I would like to see a well vetted version of segwit applied together with a increased blocksize applied as a hard fork.
You don't have a proper technical argument; I don't care about your political, social, ethical visions of what should and shouldn't be. Who are you to decide this? Segwit has many other benefits besides the increase in capacity which the forkers seem to ignore because they don't understand or value them.However segwit is not ready yet now
How can you claim something like this? Have you done sufficient testing that proves that segwit will not be ready for April? If not, then don't make false statements.I have nothing against LN as long as the Bitcoin blockchain is not unnecessarily restricted.
Nothing is being restricted and certainly not unnecessarily.If that is true, then Bitcoin is doomed. The next stage will be to add video clips and facebook discussions. The odd coin transfer will have to fit in where it can, and compete withhigh price obituaries.
You're a fool; how could you possibly question or alter "how Bitcoin was designed". Let's store everything on the Bitcoin blockchain! 
It would be very impractical, expensive and inefficient to do that.
Why do you assume that, last I checked "datacoin" cost under 0.0005$/MB per data stored.Quote
If people did choose to pay for that who are we to say that they should not. It is a permissionless network after all. 
Because Bitcoin is digital cash, not a dumping ground for other applications. If the load or legal problems that come from use for other applications diminish Bitcoin's utility as digital cash then these activities are effectively stealing from all the people who own Bitcoins. 
the inferior approach to development favoured by classic/gavin is lacking in insight, and creativity - it appeases, it doesn't inspire...
forum noise is one thing - innovation is another...
Epicenter Bitcoin EB65 - Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell : Sidechains Unchained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M
Epicenter Bitcoin EB95 - Adam Back - Why Bitcoin Needs A Measured Approach To Scaling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic
forum noise is one thing - innovation is another...
Epicenter Bitcoin EB65 - Adam Back and Gregory Maxwell : Sidechains Unchained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M
Epicenter Bitcoin EB95 - Adam Back - Why Bitcoin Needs A Measured Approach To Scaling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic
If that is true, then Bitcoin is doomed.
I still believe in the original vision of Bitcoin, however no matter what happens to Bitcoin the cryptocurrency revolution will live on. If Bitcoin did have a fundamental flaw, then I am sure at least one of the altcoins has already solved it. 
The next stage will be to add video clips and facebook discussions. The odd coin transfer will have to fit in where it can, and compete withhigh price obituaries.
It would be very impractical, expensive and inefficient to do that. If people did choose to pay for that who are we to say that they should not. It is a permissionless network after all. I have been arguing on these forums extensively, you can not say that I do not have a proper argument, the underlying vision between Core and alternatives like Classic and Unlimited are very far apart, there is a divergence of vision. I choose for a two megabyte increase now because it is less complicated then segwit, ideally I would like to see a well vetted version of segwit applied together with a increased blocksize applied as a hard fork.
You don't have a proper technical argument; I don't care about your political, social, ethical visions of what should and shouldn't be. Who are you to decide this? Segwit has many other benefits besides the increase in capacity which the forkers seem to ignore because they don't understand or value them.Then you need to argue how increasing to two megabyte increases centralization. Which is obviously not the case in any significant way. The opposite might be true by helping to decentralize development.
It does do that. The argument is whether the increase is negligible or not. Longer validation time, more bandwidth, more storage, more processing power, propagation delay, orphans; sound familiar?You say all the time that increasing the blocksize leads to centralization, you even implied it in your last quote.
It does. I have nothing against LN as long as the Bitcoin blockchain is not unnecessarily restricted.
Nothing is being restricted and certainly not unnecessarily.If that is true, then Bitcoin is doomed. The next stage will be to add video clips and facebook discussions. The odd coin transfer will have to fit in where it can, and compete withhigh price obituaries.
You're a fool; how could you possibly question or alter "how Bitcoin was designed". Let's store everything on the Bitcoin blockchain! 
If that is true, then Bitcoin is doomed.
Aren't you glad you did your due diligence?
My answer is that whatever transactions the miners choose to include in the blocks have sufficient utility to be included.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
So if I decide that my posts should be included on the blockchain, and a miner decides that a few Satoshi will reward hie enough to include them in a number of blocks, then that will be of benefit to Bitcoin. Even though every node will have to store them forever.This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
If everyone adopted Bitcoin tomorrow, and we increase the blocksize moderately, according to real technological limits and the price to transact would still be high, I would still accept that outcome, that is fine, but that is different to restricting Bitcoin unnecessarily so early in its development. The block subsidy is meant to bootstrap Bitcoin adoption during its early life, we still have decades before the fees are meant to overtake the block reward.
My answer is that whatever transactions the miners choose to include in the blocks have sufficient utility to be included.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
So if I decide that my posts should be included on the blockchain, and a miner decides that a few Satoshi will reward hie enough to include them in a number of blocks, then that will be of benefit to Bitcoin. Even though every node will have to store them forever.
Dear Curious.
TL;DR: Yes, that's how Bitcoin works.
Caveat: You have to pay per KB fees.
Longhand:
"There is a maximum standard transaction size since Bitcoin 0.8.2 of 100k per transaction.
There are a number of other limits that influence the validation and propagation of a transaction though. Specifically:
...
The standard Bitcoin client (Bitcoin Core / bitcoind) will refuse to relay transactions flagged as dust.
Enough fee should be included." http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/25290/transactions-maximum-size
"Transactions larger than 100 kilobytes are non-standard. Source 1. Source 2." http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1823/what-is-the-maximum-size-of-a-transaction
My answer is that whatever transactions the miners choose to include in the blocks have sufficient utility to be included.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
This should follow real supply and demand for block space, not an arbitrary blocksize limit. The blocksize limit should be continued to be used as an anti spam measure which should exist significantly above the current average transaction volume.
So if I decide that my posts should be included on the blockchain, and a miner decides that a few Satoshi will reward hie enough to include them in a number of blocks, then that will be of benefit to Bitcoin. Even though every node will have to store them forever.
I am not against LN and SD, I am not against it being implemented at all. I just do not think we should change the economic policy of Bitcoin now unessarelly just because Bitcoin does not scale perfectly according to your ideals. In regards to me having a limited and close minded view, that is how I view your perspective so I suppose I am not offended.
I'm open to a 2 MB increase, to dynamic blocks, to payment channels, LN, sidechains, anything that make sense and is rational. This means that my view is not closed minded and thus your view of me is wrong. Albeit, you're not. In a "battle" between Segwit and 2 MB, where segwit is the clear winner (that carries many benefits), you stick to 2 MB without a proper argument to back it up.https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html
Bitcoin does not make sense from an engineering perspective, but it does make a lot of sense in a human way. It makes certain technical sacrifices in terms of efficiency in favor of political and or ideological goals of freedom and decentralization. Concepts of democracy and decentralization might be very inefficient. However they are better for very human reasons, based on our subjective ethics.
This is not relevant to my statement. Albeit I'd argue if Bitcoin loses a good part of its decentralization that the main purpose behind it was lost.I do not think that your vision of Bitcoin will be more decentralized or secure. Payment channels will still be possible on a more unrestricted Bitcoin, and of course can be used for the appropriate use cases. You view is limited and restricted, I am saying that Bitcoin can do it all. We do not have to choose between features, that would be a false dichotomy.
More decentralized? I have not stated this.I have stated that LN is decentralized and secure which is correct; you can't be the judge of this because you don't have a technical background as you've said, right? If anything Bitcoin will be very centralized if we focus on scaling via the block size. You can't deny this.
I have spend most of my time learning about Bitcoin over the last year, with a background in the humanities I have a more unique perspective on these events. I can decide for my self what my vision for Bitcoin is. I could critique LN in terms of decentralization, there are pros and cons to using it. I can critique the rules even if I do not know how it is coded. I have nothing against LN as long as the Bitcoin blockchain is not unnecessarily restricted. https://news.bitcoin.com/the-curious-case-of-gregory-maxwell-and-the-lightning-network/
TL;DR: Super secure, decentralized, and as real as the Easter Bunny.
There isn't a decentralized solution to routing yet, that is correct; the security is not affected as this. However it seem people would rather complain than try to make that a reality. TL;DR: Super secure, decentralized, and as real as the Easter Bunny.
Oh wait; I forgot that you have no relevant skills.
No Lauda. I merely do not claim to have relevant skills, to bully people into trusting me. Unlike you.
Claiming that "there isn't a decentralized solution to routing yet [otherwise LN is decentralized and secure]" is... what is that? IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK, how can you possibly judge its security or decentralization?
Jump to: