Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 11. (Read 46564 times)

Can you imagine if a spoon was a fork?

What a pain it would be to eat soup!

Well this just in, "bitcoin classic" is the work of literall crooks

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-classic-brought-up-by-literal-crooks-1343462

I've found that directing people to the description of transaction cut-through has helped open their eyes to the fact that transactions can use the blockchain without every one of them being stuffed into it.

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"

That's nice for a bumper sticker, but in reality you can't transfer large amounts of real world money without losing a lot of it through slippage, currency fluctuations and, of course, bank transfers.

Let the Bitcoin ecosystem iron out those kinks before we bleed the users dry.

You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.



No that's the best way to end up turning the full nodes into a datacenter-only situation. That kind of can kicking approach is relentlessly refuted, why would you keep repeating it again and again as if it somehow represented the truth?



Given the free choice, people will design the most bonkers Bitcoin you can imagine. I'm happy to see Core do it for now; because they're objectively sticking to the cypher-punk credos better than the so-called competition. Maybe an alternative implementation that actually blows the Core teams cypher-punk credentials out of the water could emerge, but until then, it's Core for cypher-punks.



People want secure bitcoins. "Nothing in this life comes truly for free", as they say, and the only way to pay for that is with fees. Bitcoin basics is at the wiki site.


You know as well as I that both the SegWit fork and a blocksize fork take several month to co-ordinate, and that's just when there actually is a genuine consensus to change. Un-coordinated? Well, both XT and Classic have a current projected fork date of roughly the end of all eternity, so it's not looking so good for that approach.

See all these limits, hours, charges, fees mentioned even for much better services than the US?

Still 100 light years behind what BTC offers right now, with 4-5cents in fees for first block inclusion and avg 10 minutes time, for practically no limit in terms of value transacted.

And that, with a 100mb queue/backlog in the mempool and "blocks are full" bullshit.

Sucks to be a yank. I can transfer up to 3000euro in 24 hours for free via sepa.  STG/EUR transfers (up to £10,000 for £1.50 (forex charges excl.)

Are you really suggesting that because you are getting screwed by paying $20 for transfers, that this should somehow be the model to be aimed for by bitcoin? Suicide.

This is a completely different use case compared to currency. I use Bitcoin to buy my diners often. It would no longer be practical to do that if transactions cost more then one dollar, let alone fifteen dollars. I like to think that I understand the small blockist philosophy well. The idea that many small blockist maintain is that Bitcoin should become a settlement network and that it should cease to be a currency. I think that Bitcoin can do both and that these different functions actually reinforce each other in a synergistic fashion. Bitcoin the currency gives the network more value through utility. More value equals more security which therefore leads to it being a better settlement network. I do question how relevant settlement networks will even be in the future when everybody can just transact directly, trustlessly and cheaply.

Bitcoin will not become a global reserve currency, or a global settlement network without mass adoption by the people first. Since otherwise the powers that be have no incentive to adopt Bitcoin, they could use something like ripple instead for the use case that you mention, which would be more to their advantage. I can only see the very large financial institutions and the financial status quo adopting Bitcoin if they are "forced" to do so in order to stay relevant. This can only happen through mass adoption by the people, not increasing the blocksize eliminates this possibility and sets Bitcoin on a path which I believe is destined to fail. Alternative cryptocurrencies will simply displace Bitcoin if it does not stay competitive and relevant.

Same here. Even SEPA is cheaper.

I think they're massively ripping you off in US. I don't recall ever paying any fee for domestic transfer and currently most of them are done on the same day (Faster Payments) between different banks. I'm talking about UK.

http://www.mybanktracker.com/news/wire-transfer-fee-comparison-top-10-us-banks

Wire transfer fee comparison

According to MyBankTracker’s March 2015 analysis, all of the domestic wire transfer fees at the 10 biggest banks have remained the same as the previous quarter — with averages of $15.50 for incoming and $27.40 for outgoing transfers. The averages also stayed the same for both incoming and outgoing foreign wire transfers at $18 and $47.50 per transfer, respectively, at the 10 tops banks in the U.S. (Remember, these averages don’t account for the upcoming PNC Bank fee hike.)

At any given bank, incoming wire transfers tend to be considerably cheaper than for outgoing ones, while domestic wire transfer fees are significantly lower than that of international transfers.

The highest wire transfer fee is $65 for each outgoing foreign wire transfer at BB&T Bank, while the lowest fee for any type of a wire transaction is $15 — which is the amount charged at a majority of banks for both domestic and foreign incoming wire transfers.

Because there is such a thing that we call competition, why would anyone pay one dollar per transaction for everyday transactions? When much cheaper alternatives exist. Furthermore under greater levels of adoption it would cost much more then just one dollar, since you would have to try to outbid large financial institutions for blockspace, which would obviously lead to a terrible user experience which would furthermore make Bitcoin completely impractical for use as a form of money. I do not think that this would happen in the first place however since people would simply just move away from Bitcoin towards better alternatives. Not to mention that one dollar per transaction would also be far to much for most people in the third world.

Second point, and this is important, what you define as spam another person might consider a important transaction. Or a important use case for some business, which would get priced out of Bitcoin if we allowed this to happen. They would simply move to other alternative cryptocurrencies. This is already happening, look at the altcoin market today, it is booming, while Bitcoin remains stagnant. Bitcoin will continue to lose ground until we increase the blocksize, increasing Bitcoins utility is key to giving Bitcoin more value and therefore more security and so forth, a virtues cycle.

you actually talk to real people?

I have to save this quote. People don't believe me when I tell them.

The Bitcoin user base could grow by a factor of ten if you cut out all the spam and micro transactions by limiting block size causing fees to grow to around 1 dollar in value per transaction.
I do not think this would affect adoption in the slightest.
We're going to have to do it at some point, we won't have enough transaction fees (in the short term) to pay for our current level of security otherwise.

This is where we disagree. I do not consider moving transactions off chain to be a way to scale Bitcoin directly at all, it is the very opposite of that. The only way to scale Bitcoin directly and significantly is by increasing the blocksize. People can use lighting if they want to or not, that is their choice and that is fine. However arbitrarily restricting the blocksize, especially as technology increases for the purpose of incentivizing people to move more of their transactions off chain is wrong. Give people the free choice, if they prefer to use the lighting network over Bitcoin then that is fine and we will not need to increase the blocksize again.

Today however, the blocks are filling up and many people do not want a fee market. It is wrong for Core to attempt to unilaterally decide to change the economic policy of Bitcoin in this way. Lighting network is not complete and neither is SegWit, we can simply increase the blocksize to two megabytes. This will not destroy Bitcoin, as some people claim. This will allow Bitcoin to continue to grow, which is good for both decentralization and global financial freedom.

But Lightning!

SegWit is the foundations for Lightning.

Segwit soft fork, followed by Blocksize hard fork.



Yes, all 3. SegWit. Then Lightning. Then Blocksize. or maybe swap the last 2, depends a bit.



Lightning is the only credible plan to scale up to billions using Bitcoin.

Who wouldn't be in favour of implementing the plan that actually scales up?

I gave Gmaxwell the benefit of doubt and assumed he was just being stubborn. But it seems like he is missing the point completely about the growth factor. The whole point isn't whether or not Bitcoin will grow 100x in the next couple of years. It's that it won't grow at all unless there is room for it to have growth along those lines. And Bitcoin isn't the only show in town anymore. I think it's the best show in town atm, but that doesn't matter.


Does the above help?

Maybe I am missing something. I've only got one of those stupid heard-minds you know.

I'll try:

Node operators are not users, users are users. And the current user experience is shit because the system gets clogged up routinely.

"The bigger we make blocks, the fewer people will be able to run full nodes"

This is true, but that doesn't mean that fewer people will run nodes. If Bitcoin attracts more people, more people will run nodes and a larger share of the nodes will be running 24/7 on HQ bandwidth.

"Bitcoin cannot scale to Visa-type levels or even close while still remaining secure and decentralized."

A fairly defeatist attitude, but that's not an issue atm and shouldn't matter in this debate.

"Some other solution is needed to move the majority of changes off the blockchain, and we should focus on building that rather than making blocks bigger and bigger. Blockchain can't accept every transaction forever and the sooner we make that change the better."

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this crap needs to be pushed through now. To use the current issue of growth being limited by the block size limit to shoehorn in a major change in the very nature Bitcoin works is very dangerous. It's not just about the code, it's how the Bitcoin economy reacts to this mechanism. And by forcing this false choice on the community, Core has pushed the miners to act on the block size limit. Now that the miners know that they can veto stuff, how are devs going to push thru the off-chain scaling solutions when the technology is ready? Core are a bunch of amateurs.

The small block argument falls at this fist hurdle. If bitcoin gets bigger, it - well - Gets Bigger. There is no escaping that fact. If people want bitcoin to be a major player as a payment option for millions, then they will almost certainly not be able to run a full validating node on any shity 486 they have lying about the house.

And please don't insult us by crying "But segregated witness!" - segwit will require all full validating nodes to transmit and store as much, if not more, data as bitcoin currently does. 

The fact that small blockers trot this non-argument out as a cornerstone for maintaining the limit is a clear indication of how untenable their position is.