Topic: 1MB block size forever is just silly (Read 4292 times)

pools dont care much about fee's, for them a fee is just a bonus, not expected income.
pools care more about ensuring their blocks wont get orphaned/rejected. losing them the real income(reward) AND fee (bonus). so they are not going to push for something unless the nodes are ready for it.

50% node readiness = 50% orphan risk
95% node readiness = 5% orphan risk

so even though core thought bypassing a node vote would slide a change in under the rug, smart pools are not going to risk it, and are waiting to see a high node readiness even if the nodes dont officially get a vote.

this is benefiting miners, they have been earning more money because of the increasing amount of fess. and guess what they have been the ones holding back on adopting any solution for block size (segwit or any other things).

It will happen inbetween the software layers, BTC onchain will show 1BTC, and the LN will Represent it as 4 BTC for all LN contracts.
Or it could be as simple as 4 BTC were originally in the onchain address and LN represents 4 BTC on their offchain system, but does not fully lock the entirely of the amount, say they only lock 1 BTC and the user transmits the 3 out to another BTC onchain address, with the LN system none the wiser and still reporting their initial amount.

It is an offchain system, there is Absolutely No way to guarantee they won't counterfeit coins or fraction reserve the amounts.
You are trusting a 3rd Party LN to report accurate data , but in truth , you can not be 100% sure , until the BTC Onchain transactions has been confirmed.

Also LN does have penalties that can be triggered to steal from you and you will not receive a balance back.

 

FYI:
Onchain can be trusted, Offchain can never be trusted.

That second part could probably have been phrased better, but if you've somehow come away with the impression that LN does hold custody of any funds, that's purely down to your misinterpretation of it.  He's not lying, you're just looking for a problem that isn't really there and somehow twisting the words to suit your preferred meaning.  Yes, for it to function, "it requires that users and businesses lock up as much bitcoin as they would ever expect to transact over a given period of time".  That's how it works.  You lock the total, then within that total you can send transactions back and forth.  When you're done, the same total remains, no more, no less.  I don't see how you think that's in any way a sign that someone can make some coins appear out of nowhere and then add them to the blockchain.  It simply can't happen.  

THIS.

And in order to keep things simple and blockchain not bloated, a simple increase to 2MB would be good. Right now transaction fees would be just about right, but if they go much higher Bitcoin gets hurt.

Agree but that is conservative approach. 2 MB  would be good, but that would be precedence, that would be used to increase size further with rising risks of spam etc.

BTC miners & BTC nodes secure the BTC ONCHAIN Network.

LN Hubs will Secure the LN Notes, BTC miners have no power to determine how LN handles it's OFFCHAIN Note system.  

Your link above, the guy that wrote it is an idiot, he says and I quote

Just a few lines down on the same page , he contradicts his earlier statement.

See when people lie , like he did , when they keep talking , the contradictions appear.  

LN=Goldsmiths/Banks

History unlike humans does not lie.

 

doomad

if you put aside the "21m coins" max logic, and instead think about the 2.1 quadrillian units of measure (satoshi's)
much like not thinking about $21 dollars but thinking about 2100 pennies (smallest sharable amount)

and then read the LN paper about their 'millisats', you realise that in contracts they want to transact in millisats
2,100quadrillian millisats instead of 2.1quadrillian sats.

though the '2.1million bitcoin' is not changing. the numbers of 'shares' / units / divisibility can be changed.this means it can mess with the mental psychology of scarcity.

imagine it another way.
you have a loaf of bread that can be cut into 20 slices of bread.
yes your thinking that a loaf of bread can only feed 20 people at most. no more. only 20 slices exist and only 1 loaf exists. now you can have people fighting over owning the whole loaf or fighting over the 20 slices.

now imagine a Baker comes in and decides to cut each slice into 10 strips per slice.

now suddenly there are 200 pieces of bread that can be shared around with 200 people

yes there is just one complete loaf. or 20 'slices' but there are now 200 shareable pieces
the whole supply/demand dynamic can change if people are able to have/receive more pieces

now here is the challenge,
get a $20 bank note
and find 2,000,000 people.

now shout out what the people are willing to trade with you for that $20
you will get lots of people offering you many things. upto a value they see as worth $20.. where by your the only holder so you can pick the best deal offered.

now change it for 2000 pennies.. suddenly when asking what people will offer you for it. less people will offer you the same deal as before for the entire 2000 pennies. most will start giving you lame deals for small amounts of sat 100 pennies.

now change it for 2,000,000 grains of pnny metal dust.
.... silence. no offers..
but technically you still have $20.

now you see the issue of making bitcoin more diverse.

its not technically fractional reserve, but more so 'diluting shares' mindset

Okay, I'm not the only one seeing it, surely?  It's like you and Carlton are the exact same person, only you believe the exact opposite things.  For a split second I thought I was reading one of his replies.  You're like Nega-Carlton.  

I must have stumbled upon the middle-ground if I'm now getting it in the neck from both sides.  



Great, fractional reserve is fraud.  I agree there.  But I think it's an insult to those securing the network to assume that they would be so ignorant as to allow such a horrid change in Bitcoin.  It's nothing like a Bank that can alter its terms and conditions at any time without prior warning or consent and no one can say or do anything about it.  The rules are defined in the code and the code can't be changed unless there's a sufficient majority who accept the change.  

I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting with "the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud".  But if you mean there was such a thing as a hub running their own code to magically create new coins from nowhere, that software would be different to what everyone else was running.  Those transactions wouldn't be compatible and wouldn't be accepted into the blockchain.  

There are some legitimate concerns about Lightning, but fractional reserve isn't one of them and time will solve many of the others.

It was apparent in Banking and that did not stop people from using Banks.
It will be apparent in LN, and the LN Hubs will update because they will profit from the fraud also.

And make no doubt , fractional reserve banking is nothing but outright fraud.

I have read the LN whitepaper , your attempts at smearing me with propaganda techniques is sad & pathetic.

LN will do exactly what the Goldsmiths did, you are naive & foolish not to see that.

Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are forever doomed to repeat it.  

 

FYI:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16985041
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16985332
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16992577
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17758623

Whether "they" tell us or not, it will be apparent from the code, which people will look at before they run it.  People will see that you can't add to the balance once it has been locked.  The total can't be changed.  You aren't handing your coins to the custody of a third party where they can alter the balance.  And no, someone can't just "add an update that allows fractional reserves", because the code that governs the network is set in the client and users wouldn't update their client if the new code allowed fractional reserve.  Enough with the conspiracy theories.  It's clear from your posts that you haven't read a single thing about it.  You're only proving my point that the anti-blockstream hardliners are no better than anti-blocksize-adjustment hardliners.

I only speak 2 language , English & Logic.

Sorry, Franky1 is correct in his viewpoint and you are incorrect in yours.  

Logically Speaking.   

 

LOL,  

You think they are going to tell you it will have the ability to do fractional reserves.
It is an offchain representation , there is nothing stopping them from adding an update ,that allows fractional reserves.

It is just history repeating itself, learn from it or be enslaved by it, readers choice.
 
http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
BTC        =  Gold

 

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/henryford136294.html
by Henry Ford


Updated for LN
by Kiklo

Learn logic

Firstly, you can voice whatever opposition you like if you actually have something more than personal attacks to offer.  If you think you're capable of that.  Play nice and you might find others start to do the same.

Secondly, it's not just you pushing the tribalism mindset, it's the vehemently anti-blockstream crowd too.  Both "sides" are as bad as each other.  But obviously I must be one of "them", right?  Because everyone who disagrees you absolutely has to be a BU fanatic who wants to fork Bitcoin into oblivion.  And from the perspective of the anti-blockstream fanatics, anyone who disagrees with them is equally untrustworthy and wants to control Bitcoin.  Somehow both sides genuinely believe the other to be evil, when in reality it's just people being belligerent and uncompromising.  Both tribes need to stop sniping and start discussing things reasonably.  Step one: stop telling people to fork off if you disagree with them.



I think it would help assuage concerns if we all had a greater understanding of what it is that's actually being proposed.  It seems like people arguing both for and against it can't explain it very well beyond the basic concept.  More often than not, the argument is presented that we should simply trust developers to get on with it, but that only flares tensions and results in the two groups sniping at each other with insults again.  There's no way I'm locking my funds into a multisig address until I know every conceivable outcome and I expect the same applies to everyone.  But if you'd prefer that all the LN stuff go in a new thread, we can do that.  This one is swiftly heading beyond redemption anyway, heh.

neither side wins..
rules stay the same until consensus is met.

learn consensus

And since only 5% of the nodes and a minority of the miners support BU, core should win?

learn consensus
there would be only one chain. and NODES decide the rules... not pools, not devs.

one chain that the limits change when NODES signal they can cope (meaning no 'datacentre by midnight/gigabyte by midnight' doomsdays)
then pools secondarily start making blocks to the size the node consensus agrees to.

anything that the nodes dont consent to because devs have bypassed consensus would get orphaned.
less consent
(lower consent=more orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)
(higher consent=less orphan/rejects - but ultimately one chain once temporary drama subsides)

Increasing block size wont scale anything. You get scaling when two processes can work in the same time without waiting on the other.

With blockchain it would mean two or more blocks could be mined in the same time without waiting or depending on each other.

Increasing block size or decreasing block time increases throughtput but doesn't increase scaling.

 The only one valid next block concept prevent true scaling , as all miners/stakers need to synch on the next block, and cant "advance" The blockchain each on their side.

To have true scaling it would require to distribute tx across miners for that they can each mine a different block in the same time. But with current blockchain principle that cannot happen as only one of the two block would get accepted.

Having a double chain system would allow cheap scaling.

To me the only thing that truly prevent mass scaling is the competition for block reward. Without this, many secure scaled system can be thought of.

The logic of coin emission control via block reward make it difficult to scale easily, as the total coin supply need to be controlled on the whole network, if a consistent emission curve is to be maintained.

I guess when cap is reached and emission curve flaten, scaling become easier.

this topic is about bitcoin blocksize growth.. which is about consensus... you can meander your posts into being about personal attacks all you like.
you can fake it all you like that your the victim,
but atleast spend 30 minutes learning about bitcoin.
learn consensus vs bilateral