Topic: 1MB block size forever is just silly - page 3. (Read 4292 times)

This is one of the best short opinion posts I read about the blocksize debate and I fully agree. I would use LN, if it works the way it is described by its supportes - but only for very small, non-critical (regarding to privacy and security) transactions, the way like we today use prepaid and gift cards, and perhaps for the coffee in the bar the next block. But on-chain transactions should never be a privilege of "Bitcoin banks", "payment processors" and other large entities. So I want all - Segwit, LN and a conservative block size increase, because we will continue to see technical advancements that make a bigger blockchain feasible.

... and what? If there's any chance they're not, you should find out for yourself. The idea that any credibility should be afforded to a consistent Bitcoin troll of 4 years+ is a joke, Franky has proven to be such a troll so, so many times. Every bit of his weirdo politics has ended up proven wrong, upon which he just moves onto the next scare tactic. Which makes your opinion a bit of a joke, doesn't it?

LN is banking, no way around it ,
BTC onchain network has real BTC on it,  on LN you are trading nothing but a representation value of BTC , as being off chain, BTC can not actually be on the LN Network.
IE:  Banking  


You stirred up a pet peeve of mine with that permissionless BS.

Sometimes I wonder what are these mining machines doing if not processing the transactions?
1-What are they really doing some sort of unneeded extra work?
2-Are they secretly trying to find the next prime?
3-Why there are some blocks with just a few TXs?
4-And why the protocol allows such small blocks?

Plus we shouldn't forget about the "open" part.  It's hardly an open system if people are forced to transact off-chain because on-chain is constantly full and prohibitively expensive.  I'm confident that node operators will make their own judgement calls based on the level of service they're getting from the system as a whole.  Users won't support a system that doesn't support them.  If the user experience deteriorates to an unacceptable level, users will take action to remedy it.  Simple cause and effect.  The only thing yet to be determined is if we do SegWit then blocksize, or as a compromise do both at once just to end the current impasse.  It seems clear that both (and more) have to happen.



Whether you deem it "nonsense" or not, it's still a dramatic shift in how the system operates.  I, for one, am glad that people are stopping to think about the ramifications.  It seems like almost everyone has a slightly different idea in their head about exactly how Lightning is going to operate in practice.  Right now it's all theory, so I'm not going to dismiss franky1's concerns.  I certainly hope they prove to be unfounded, but if there's any chance they're not...



Precisely.  Thinking ahead and considering the potential shortcomings about that proposal.  It's not "nonsense" to do that.  It's sensible.  So why are we shooting down people talking about Lightning in exactly the same way?

I think we'd also have to start slipping nodes a few satoshi's from transaction fees if something is implemented that makes the chain excessively large.

As always, research and testing should be done to the max.

Will you stop with the nonsense already?

There isn't a good proposal yet that:
1) Doesn't give the miners too much power.
2) Or which is very hard to game.

---

AFAIK it is stated somewhere that the general consensus long term is a variable block size, but that requires a lot more research and testing.

what about a variable blocksize?

here goes CB failing to grasp the basics of multisig..
if you need someone else to sign a transaction.. say hello to 'permission'
also
if you need a hopper to agree to be part of a payment.. say hello to 'permission'
meaning its no longer permissionless.

lastly due to the costs of 'hops' vs 'hubs' it will naturally turn into people saving funds by using hubs.

oh and CB, please learn CLTV maturity (resembles 3-5 business day delay for end user experience)
oh and CB, please learn CSV revoke (resembles chargebacks for end user experience)

Hmmm, the only off-chain system currently proposed is permissionless. So, WTF are you talking about? Oh yes, that's right, you're talking about incredibly subtle anti-Bitcoin propaganda, like you always do.


Do you think that if you repeat "Lightning is Banking 2.0" a million times, it will magically become the truth?

there goes CB yet again throwing down the

not verbatim: 'bitcoin mainnet should not scale onchain because billions of users by midnight.'
its much like saying in the 1900's cars should not be built because billion cars by midnight..

firstly. rational thought.
bitcoin wont have billions of users overnight. infact bitcoin wont have billions of users over decades.

a rational thing to think of is about 5% of the world adopting bitcoin naturally OVER DECADES
meaning it can scale.

if people think bitcoin is going to be the 'one world currency' and no other currency is going to exist then say goodbye to freedom of choice and say hello to bitcoin just becoming as corrupt as the IMF

instead think of it as just rationally taking a good healthy spot as one of the top 5 "nations"(communities)
think of it as being an open choice to have as a secondary currency to their own national currency.

then realise it wont happen overnight.

Blocksize is not a scaling solution on its own, but should still be part of the solution.  We need everything and the kitchen sink.  SegWit, Blocksize, Lightning, Atomic cross-chain transactions, sidechains/treechains, etc.  People generally understand that the blocksize is one of the more costly elements of the formula, but we still have to find a balance.  Scaling 100% off-chain runs in stark contrast to the underlying principles of an open and permissionless system.  Users won't stand for it and won't allow it to happen.

What makes you, or the OP, think that blocksize is the only way to scale up?



If the target is everyone (billions of people) using Bitcoin, using the blocksize to grow is not possible. Blocksize is not a scaling solution, it uses resources at the same scale whether it's 1 MB or 100 MB.

BU and Segwit go head to head, BU support briefly surpassed SW few days ago.
Supporting block increase =/= supporting BU

As far as I recall, Antpool's stance was that they will support SW but only after 2mb hardfork, not sure whether they still stick to it. I reckon F2pool could have similar stance, but I'm just guessing as I'm out of the loop with current affairs.

Can you provide any quote from any major pool confirming they wait with the decision after the Litecoin 'testing'?


I love that logic:

BTC price drops: "Price means nothing! that's just speculation"
BTC price goes up: "See, that's a clear sign that Bitcoin is doing fine!"

How many pools want Unlimited? only 20 % including those, who earlier supports bitcoin xt and classic. Approximately 25% support segwit and the majority just wait to test segwit on lightcoin first

It is already overly silly, but price's up so everything is fine. 

this forums webmaster? (i think u misspelled) who begged for donations years ago to update this forum... but years later its the same thing.
if he cant update a webforum. dont desire him to supervise anything, no matter how close of a buddy he is to the blockstream crew

I am not blaming anyone.  I just would like to try to get a attempt to do something about it going.

I like something like an increase of 50% every year.. keep it under moores law not equal to.  I dunno..

THEMOS.. lead the charge!!!

who wants to keep blocksize at 1mb? I was under the impression bitcoin was meant to scale.

Arguably segwit might not be the best implementation, but it is still a solution maybe...?

blame core..

pools wont move forward until there is good node validatability.
core decided to avoid getting nodes to update and show validatability.

core shot themselves in the foot thinking they could bypass security.