Topic: . - page 29. (Read 24756 times)

who gives a shit about the speed of transaction growth? how "fast" btc grows is not a metric of its success -- it is only that for get-rich-quickers who think dreams of adoption (err---future bubbles) are paramount to securing the blockchain and keeping it decentralized.

if people simply write off bandwidth concerns (and therefore node health) because they are more interested in "growth" than the system's ability to "handle that growth" (i.e. scalability).....then how few nodes is too few that they will finally admit that bitcoin has failed to retain any semblance of decentralization? by then, it will likely be too late.

i'm amazed that people around here still push the idea that "increasing block size limit" increases scalability. sorry, but throughput =/= scalability. go ahead and see if bitcoin can handle 2,000 transactions per second like Visa. increase throughput to the max, see what happens. and then continue to babble about how increased load on the system made it more scalable. (VS, i'm looking at you)
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+scalability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+scalability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=definition+throughput

sometimes i wish bitcoin never "bubbled" in april/november 2013. the get-rich-quick assholes may ruin everything, because they play right into the hands of industry stakeholders that have zero interest in keeping bitcoin decentralized.

gavin's biggest problem (assuming we don't try to ponder what his more nefarious intentions might be) is his optimism. he has no interest in planning for worst-case scenarios -- that is an abomination for any software/engineering project. i've never once seen him make any compelling argument for why raising the block size limit (and doing so aggressively, as in the case of XT) is remotely urgent for the health of bitcoin. nothing but fear mongering about "omg blocks are full! what if small time newbie investors have to pay more than a couple cents (or nothing) to send a transaction?! the horror?!"

and at the end of the day, what he has said is completely untechnical and fails to address the many legitimate technical concerns of Core developers. bullshit like "I really, really don't understand this attitude-- I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better."
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12269256

well, that technology improves does not address the arguments that current infrastructure may already be insufficient to force more capacity on the system (e.g. upload bottlenecks, for one). and if not, the only sensible way to go about increasing throughput requirements is to do so with respect for technological and infrastructural limitations -- not come up with idealistic "fixes" (to fix what?) with the intention of rolling back changes once something goes terribly wrong.

we already know that based on the current validation architecture, that at 2MB block size, an attack can be structured so that a single transaction can take longer to validate than for multiple subsequent blocks to be found.

but i dont see Classic devs offering a fix for that. in fact, it seems Toomim isn't even willing to properly maintain the repository -- he wants to push the hard fork but do zero real work. instead of preparing Classic for seg-wit functionality, he plans to simply copy everything from Core once it's done. is this really the guy you want leading bitcoin development? he can change a constant -- great -- but his plan is to copy more skilled developers for everything else?
https://imgur.com/gallery/wbsxJ

this whole thing is a sick fucking joke. i've never been so ashamed to be associated with this community. like chickens with heads cut off.

Have fun.

Quickly means everyone will jump ship as soon as they either realize that they're on the wrong fork or they see that almost everyone else has moved on. The difficulty will be way too high in comparison to the hashrate and will die. If you take the 75% to 25% option then you're essentially splitting the chain into two (not upgrading one). The exact numbers are debatable though.

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.
Saying that the majority should not be able to push around the minority that does not imply that they should dictate Bitcoin. As I've already said, 95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly. With Gavin's proposal you have 75% threshold. Is this 'majority' supposed to dictate the rules for the other 25%?