Topic: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons (Read 5242 times)

Forget about Segwit/Lightning. Nobody wants the second-rate hack with second-tier vaporware on top of it.  In the real world, BTC is about to go below 50% total crypto market share. The mempool just passed 100K over the weekend, causing huge delays for transactions (with Core fanbois screaming "PAY HIGHER FEES", as if that will help everyone).

ETH, XMR, DASH are now officially taking over. Thank the core devs when you get a chance.

We need segwit sooner or later in order to make the lightning network work, and also to make blocksize increases without risking quadratic hashing exploits, so why not just get it done already and roll it out?

Sooner or later we'll get segwit, this is only delaying history.

Oh and I don't discard that once Jihan and Roger get tired of making millions with alts, once LTC, ETH etc are at all time highs, they'll say "whoops, you were right" and then they'll short the altcoin market and long BTC as they start supporting segwit.

well for anyone thats wrote an implementation thats clean and knows the purpose of header files
they would be able to change to blocks over 1mb with 1 line of code in a header file.

yet the cludge of core ends up needing to change multiple functions in atleast 4 files. which can then cause a snowball affect of other issues if those functions were needed for other things..

in short by being cludgy they dug themselves a hole and cant get out of it with 1 spade. so rather than dig themselves out or starting again with clean code. they are trying to get people to follow them into the hole

The current fiasco is because the fees are manipulated upwards by Core. They are turning Bitcoin into an "Roll Royce car factory" instead of mass adoption "Ford factory."

Mass adoption = higher value of bitcoin which will be worth more than the current fees itself, plus fees on top.

Comparing 2014 with 2017 is like comparing an apple with an orange, and saying they are the same.

OMG you're not as clever as you think.
 
Don't need any other argument for big blocks other than its the best way for a short term capacity increase.  1 line of code vs 5000 whatever lines of Segwit.  My Choice is clear.
 
 Putting you on ignore for a while. 

1. pools dont NEED fee's today, yea its a bonus that can fluctuate but its not their main income. the reward is their main income.
the switch of income:bonus (from reward:fee to fee:reward) wont happen foe DECADES

2. pools would prefer to do things nodes accept to ensure they get atleast the reward. so pools are not gonna push any new rule or rock the boat with any new feature unless they know its not gonna get orphaned or going to cause spendability issues with certain merchants, which they prefer to spend the rewards on.

3. you may scream that coinbase might be segwit positive but what if the merchants/exchange/private investor they trade with prefers something else... think about that!! (do you even know what method a pool uses to get its fiat)

4. to highlight point one. pools have and will find the best ways to be efficient and within acceptable rules to get their blocks accepted. even if it means abstaining from a new rule change, even if it means starting a new 'empty block' while verifying a competitors solved block from a previous round.

5. i told you to get todays 'bonus' from users paying 2014 fee's would require an 8mb block. but as i have said for months pools dont see the fee's as a NEEDED income. its just a bonus. what is more important is getting their block accepted by the nodes first. because 12.5btc is more important than 1.5btc..

6. emphasising point 5 screwing around trying to get more than x fee's by increasing the risk of losing the 12.5+fee.. is like a walmart employee trying to screw $10 out of a cash register each month, risking losing $1k a month job... its just not logical to try being greedy



core guessed and gave fake reasons for 2mb years ago
better experts now found 32mb can work, 8mb is the general world wide no issue acceptability..
core accepted 8mb was a good safe number
core/blockstream prefer 4mb to be extra cautious because they know their compact blocks might need to ask twice for data now and again
core/blockstream prefer 1mb base with fake reasons of 'but pools NEED their fee's'.

strangely core removed lots of CODE that allows for reasonable controlled fee's thus allowing the fee's to get so out of control.
yep even in low demand, gmaxwlls 'average fee' concept keeps fee up. its not as reactive to low demand to make the price drop when demand is low
core stopped acting like devs and more like economist/bankers screaming "just pay more". yet core/blockstream have shown lack of communication with pools to actually ask the questions. 'what should core/blockstream do to make pools and nodes mutually happy' (the community)

all blockstream have done is 'would buying you a plane ticket and a seat an an exclusive bildrburg close door meting buy you blockstreams vote into following blockstream'.. yet 65% of pools even when bribed with all inclusive weekends still abstain/say nay.. because pools can see the cludgy code of segwit

Irrelevant. The miners do not decide what Bitcoin is or isn't.

Nonsense. They have long came to the conclusion that a DOS attack vector is present at 2 MB. You either go with Segwit or an extremely limited block size increase (e.g. sigops wise).

Jonald does not have any knowledge. He's paid to spam pseudo-science to boost propaganda and cause a diversion.

Did I beat the shills? OMG, you guys can't answer my questions or refute my argument? 

Segwit and lightning network will bring us technologies such as Confidential Transactions and CoinJoin, which when combined, create an anonymous coin that actually scales (unless all the other anonymous coins we have).

So those two features alone make LTC a good contender to take the lead in the "anonymous coin" market.

It's also faster and cheaper. Your coins will never get lost or anything, that's just FUD.

Experts in the world of cryptography have long come to the conclusion that the optimal block is 2 megabytes, although Chinese miners think in large volumes But as far as I know this will not happen.

i don't need an argument.  Miners are going to go for big blocks soon.

You still didn't answer the questions but you did try.

What blocksize will be needed and how many transactions within it will equal both the .10 cent user fees and 2017 level of miner fees ($271,104+)?


My argument is, even if miners got BU or some other proposal through that gave them blocksize control, they are not going to raise the blocksize over an amount where they would lose out on rising transaction fees. Meaning, if you want bigger blocks so fees return to .10 cent, it won't happen. If you think they'll cripple one source of income, you're living in la la land.

You're going to need a new argument for blocksize increase because .10 cent fees aint it buddy.

Edit: BTW, I want to see .10 cent fees again (I think that ship has sailed though). I want to see a blocksize increase after SegWit.

That's your argument?  "Raising the blocksize is a pointless incentive, therefore we should prohibit it?"
 
You can't have it both ways:  On one hand argue that "oh no there will be no fees and no security if we have big blocks" and on the other hand say "fees will be high anyway". 

I will watch him
Do you think?

the empty block is not about causing a backlog intentionally. its about instead of waiting 10 seconds/minute to validate a block before making a new block its about starting a new block WHILE validating the previous block. thus unable to add new tx to the new block attempt because they are unsure if the first one is all valid..

what you find is that pools do this alot. and after validating a previous block they start adding tx's (each round of using up all the nonces) and the only time you really ever see an empty block is when they are lucky enough to get a solution within seconds(first round) to not have been able to start adding tx's to a block

replace 2015 with 2014 and you have your answer.
mempool bloat changes.. but based on the last year where mempools average 3-4mb average.. then it would need 4mb blocks to bring conjection down. which to get to or exceed the 2014 fee of upto 10cent would far exceed the totals of 2014 tx fee income.. obviously

Are you that stupid? Miners want competitive fees, they make more money that way. Empty blocks help miners create a backlog and force people to increase fees, that's what miners want, MORE MONEY.

Do you think miners want lower fees? You think they want to help users out? They want to control the blocksize so they can increase it when appropriate so they can make more money not to help users but to help themselves.

BTW, you posted a lot of irreverent information to my post AND you still didnt answer my questions," Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?"

1. blockstream(CORE) removed all the fee controlling code. = core caused a fee rise. not pools.. core become bankers by not relying on code to control things and just instead shouted "just pay more"

2. blockstream(CORE) bypassed node consensus by going soft = core gave the only veto power to pools for segwit... pools didnt have control before core gave it to them. pools dont have control over other implementation proposals

3. other implementations are sticking with the standard NODE and POOL symbiotic consensus. thats has existed since day one and made no threats of splits/ PoW changing / banning nodes

4. re-implementing a new 'priority' formulae can actually reward lean average users with cheap fee's while penalising bloated repeat spenders (moving funds very block spammers).

5. there is no need to push fee's to $1+ a tx EVER. far better to naturally grow the blocksize in levels nodes can handle (even core admit 8mb is 'safe') thus allowing a 2015 10c fee ($220 total) to be upto $1760 total just by allowing more 10cent tx's in. not forcing $1 fees by holding tx count limits down to cause a upto $2k total (which pools dont need right now anyway)

6. lastly to debunk your mindset that pools want fee's .. i will hand you your own words "miners are still producing empty blocks.". if they cared about fee's they wouldnt empty block.. logically

Ridiculous, here's why (From Blockchain.info):

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2014 = $5830

Total transaction fees from May 2nd 2017 = $271,104

x46.5 increase.

Tell me what size of a block increase (and how many transactions) will reduce fees for users to the 2014 level while maintaining or exceeding current levels of miner fees? Or do you think miners are going to give up that money out the kindness of their hearts?

Not to mention, even with a backlog of transactions, miners are still producing empty blocks.

A bit like saying why would companies build bigger factories when a small one would do?

Learn economics. Bigger blocks = more txs = more fees.

A blocksize increase does not guarantee that on-chain fees will be low, and your precious BU does not guarantee that miners will even want to create larger blocks once they have the power to, instead of using smaller blocks to gain more fees. Why the fuck would miners even want bigger blocks when they make more money with smaller ones? Giving miners more power to manipulate Bitcoin is a bad idea that any non-shill can plainly see. You're the one that sounds brainwashed, by the big blockers.