Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 7. (Read 46564 times)

These two statements make zero sense due to the fact that they are contradicting themselves. I have only claimed that Bitcoin can not catch up to Visa with on chain transactions due to the infficient way of scaling decentralized systems (in comparison to centralized). I have no idea what kind of math you're talking about here nor how it is relevant to this statement.

Apparently you are unable to read the fine print. Segwit -> IBLT & weak blocks -> LN -> possibly some smaller block size increases and we should be fine for quite some time. LN is a wonder when it comes to 'tps' which becomes actually irrelevant with it (number of channels will matter). The main idea behind Segwit is actually not the increase of the transaction capacity. If you had done enough research you would know that.

Since Bitcoin, in your opinion, won't scale well, we should forget about scaling altogether?
Why bother with segwit then? Why not go for *smaller* blocks & foster "decentralization"

I disagree on the "it won't happen" part, because, well...maths... It's not a matter of if. Only a matter of when. It could be 30 years or 60 years, but at some point even 1GB or 1TB blocks will be peanuts for the standards that exist in future time-space coordinates.

I agree on the "we will never be able to process more than a centralized...", because, well.... p2p inefficiency.

It won't happen. You obviously have little knowledge on the scaling of large systems (distributed vs centralized vs decentralized). I'm not saying that we will never be able to process a lot of transactions; I'm saying that we will never be able to process more than a centralized and well expanded system like Visa (on chain transactions). I have no idea why some people think that we can. Their TPS is already a few thousand times higher than what Bitcoin is doing.

If you make an assumption of ever-increasing technological means, it will *definitely* happen. The only question is "how long before it does?".

Home connections in the 80s/early 90s, were like a few hundred bps to 1200-2400 bps. That's bits. Now there are fiber 1gbps connections in some places.

CPU processing abilities that are now in a simple smartphone, used to be "supercomputer" stuff that filled up entire rooms: http://pages.experts-exchange.com/processing-power-compared/

Obviously, you can just sit and wait for the day when tech will allow you to do more, or you can optimize your modus operandi to make the most of what you have right now.

I demand time travel machine.

Post written at 17.5.1983 at my typewriter.

Bitcoin will never scale to Visa levels or beyond if you're talking about on chain transactions. Never. Even with the foolish BIP101 Bitcoin would only reach the same transaction capacity of the 2015 Visa in ~2030. By then Visa would be handling a much higher amount of transactions and thus Bitcoin would be always behind. Decentralized solutions do not scale efficiently as centralized ones; thus we need to work on the second layer with technologies such as LN which will enable exponential growth.

---

---

Someone did make a good point about why this political fork is bad (can't recall who was it). It feels like someone is testing if a political fork can be successful. Once we do this once, who's to say that it won't happen again?

 WHAT U MEAN ´NO DEMAND'?!!

I DEMAND IT!!1

DEMoCRACY DEMANDs IT FFs!!!

That's because today's techno-industrial complex doesn't espouse decentralization as its guiding principle.
Unlike Bitcoin.


As mentioned earlier, Seagate could, if demand existed. Currently, there's no demand for 100TB drives. No demand, no point making them. DCs are fine with hot-swappable disk arrays, makes for much simpler maintenance.

TL;DR: No flying dog houses because low demand, not technological obstacles.

It's amazing that so many really really smart users are working on the so called small block problem.

It's great because the solution would be discovered really soon.

Ever notice that hard drives are only made in big centralized factories?  What's up with that elitism?  Can't we try a more fair, democratic approach?  

What is so difficult about increasing the platter/bit density by a factor of 20 with no trade-offs in terms of price, performance, and MTBF?  

I heard Seagate can put out 100TB drives any time they want, but are sensor-shipping them in order to force us to buy more smaller ones!!!11!  

In theory, Bitcoin will scale even to visa level txs and beyond based solely on technological advances. The probability of that happening is actually 100% unless we somehow fail as a civilization, have a 3rd world war, a meteor hits earth etc etc. Otherwise, in 20-30-40 years, a 10gb block will be the equivalent of a 1mb one. It's like PCs went from kilobytes of ram, to megabytes, to gigabytes and home connections went from a few bytes per second to megabytes per second.

There are however some issues on the hardware market. Issues like the fact that CPUs are not advancing the way they should, given that AMD is lagging and Intel doesn't have to push too much (a 9 year old quad core is currently cheaper and quite competitive with low end chips of today by AMD and Intel. This would be impossible between, say, 1991 of a 486 @ 50ΜHz and 2000 with a low end Celeron or K6 running 300-500 MHz)

Optical drives are also stagnant. If someone saw the CD->DVD progression of the 90s, where DVDs had capacity near what a hard disk had at the time (in '95 a CD was ~700mb and a disk was ~500-800mb, in 98-99 a disk was ~4-10GB and the DVD was 4-8GB) you'd expect we would have >1TB optical discs right now but they are buried in some lab, despite having read about such advances multiple times. We didn't use to have ...HDDs for "storage", we had floppies, then CDs, then DVDs... now we have HDDs - which in a way is artificial demand for HDDs and still HDDs don't offer cost effective ways of storage.

I bought a WDC 1TB 7200rpm (blue / ealx sata2) around 5 years ago for ~62 euro and its price is not much different currently (59 euro). In the 90s, if I paid the same money I paid on my wdc 80mb in 92, I would get a Fireball of 6.4GB in 97.

If manufacturers were running full speed we'd be seeing a whole different market. Now with the content stored online, you download a movie, see it, erase it. 10-15 years ago, people hoarded videos etc and stacked them in DVDs, etc. Then they run out of space and started buying HDDs and external HDDs. Then they stopped hoarding, just downloaded and erased. So no motive for HDD manufacturers to go dramatically lower on $/GB, plus they have a cartel nowadays that works as inefficiently as the cpu one.

TLDR: While it's a mathematical certainty that over a long-enough timeline bitcoin will scale as technology evolves, in the short-to-mid term, we have to face some market anomalies that create an artificial slowdown in significant (and affordable) increases of cpu power and hdd storage space.

Hapless speculator, yes.  "Currency speculator," no.  But don't let the undue constraint of discussing Gavin's actual phrase get in the way of your off-topic personal digs.   

Also, I'm not so hapless as to not notice you cherry-picked a gold graph that only shows its predictable retracement from all-time-highs (there, FTFY).

I'll plead No Contest to being not too good with money, having spend almost all my early BTC on under-performing investments.

Back in 2011-12, my reasoning was in line with Gavin's risk-averse exposure-minimization paradigm (and seeding the ecosystem was irresistible nerd fun).

So I tried to buy just about anything I could with Bitcoin - a lifetime supply of Emergen-C, gold, silver, Icedrill shares, and random stuff from BitMit.

The first thing I learned was that valuable lessons are necessarily expensive!

The second thing I learned was to hold, hold, and then hold some more.

But my gold and silver will never be worthless, and provide value as a hedge against fiat and crypto.  And the Emergen-C lasts forever, as they provide comic relief in the form of exorbitantly expensive ascorbic acid!   

Your understanding of fee economy is wrong which is part of the reason you dont see advantage with inceasing number of onchain transactions to the next 3/s soon. Basically when you saturate the block longterm so the backlog cannot clear, the fees rise much more + you limit the number of people who can use Bitcoin. And because there is no working Bitcoin offchain solution yet to serve more Bitcoin users you basically say go people away to altcoins, Bitcoin is only for the few ones paying high fees.

Now if there are Bitcoin offchain solutions ready and working, it is time when you can afford to not increase onchain transactions/second capacity if there is strong reason to loose decentralization substantionally and still you can hope high part of Bitcoin user base will preffer using more Bitcoin offchain solutions instead just going to altcoins.

Thats big difference why it is necessary to increase transactions/second capacity now even by the small 3/s to give more time to the offchains solutions to be completed so people dont need move to other altcoins when Bitcoin become saturated/unussable and without working Bitcoin offchains solutions.

Problem: We don't control Bitcoin.

Solution: We try to convince everybody to use our version of Bitcoin.

----------------------

Problem: Too many shills online

Solution: Keep on mining

^^By "monetary order" you mean anachronisms like gold, silver, and priceless bolo ties you rest home visionaries keep "investing" in?
It ain't circling, oldster, moar like clogging the drain

sssshhh. can you here that? spluttering and wrenching?


the noise? can you hear it? gurgling?


What is it? It's called "the sound the monetary order makes while circling the drain".

Trolling at the highest rate   Even before iCEBREAKER trolled I clarified what I really meant if you both cared to read few previous posts in this thread before posting... :

There is nothing in the post you linked to that suggests Gavin wanted Bitcoin to purely be a payment network. He was simply talking honestly about how he personally was planning to use Bitcoin back in 2010.

Is this part of Core's new "Communication Strategy"?

From my perspective, it makes you a hapless, a hapless speculator.
Both gold & silver performed somewhat better than IceDrill, which is not to say "well." Horribly, actually.



You're a nice guy, ice, just not too good with money