Topic: Big Block support at 50% - page 3. (Read 4291 times)

You, like all of the core supporters, keep conveniently ignoring decentralization threats related to forcing users off the main chain, and only focus on node cost.  I understand you hold the position of 'keep the coffee money off-chain and lets use the main chain for big stuff', but what good is having sound money if you can only use it for big stuff and not for every day things?   Why should I need anyone's permission to transact? There's also huge privacy concerns with allowing the government to see all of your small transactions, as well as the taint issues for your bigger purchases even if done on chain. 

I say there doesn't have to be this false dichotomy.  Bitcoin can handle everything on chain.  I would like to see your kitchen table math on why you think 'datacenters' are going to be needed any time soon, even for much larger blocks.

Most importantly,  in the long run I don't think the security model will work well with only large transactions being done on chain.  There won't be enough fee revenue, security will drop, and people will simply use other coins that offer both high security and low fees.


 

If you have a lot of BTC, you can afford to run your own node.

3rd party to trust ?
What if 3rd party will be corrupted and want move with changes that you don't want - like leave 21m coin hard limit to endless reward ? When you lose ability to run onw node then BTC won't be p2p currency and won't have many resistance that it have now.
Running own node when you have a lot $$$ in BTC is very important.

it's still necessary. and now a higher one would add to bitcoin's appeal, functionality and future prospects.

SPV wallets for normal users.

Nobody can veto a consensus. By its very definition it means that there is no consensus.

There are some people that claim everyone wants segwit, and its only this evil mining entity which is against it. This is not true. I am not convinced with the segwit implementation in its current form, it radically changes the protocol by hiding behind a soft sofa. I'm not a big whale BTC holder, multi terra hash miner, or a paid shill. Just a small time BTC user with a technical background.

It's quite possible that the protocol can never achieve a consensual change. BTC will be of little utility and a p2p cash system for the rich. As long as the Ferrari dealerships and the space tourism industry etc.. accept bitcoin then I guess it could become quite valuable.

Oh? That's great! Could you point out some of the features which have replaced the function of the 1 MB limit?

i for one do not regard 1mb as any type of desirable feature. it looks like it was considered a necessity at the time and that's fine and it did the job great. this is not that time any more.

if it can't move beyond it with sewgit, bu, classic, or whatever the majority decides on, well i wouldn't have signed up for something that can't evolve to meet the needs of today and beyond.

Well, then they got conned. Caveat emptor!

Also, I call bullshit. People want Bitcoin because of it's unique properties which are possible thanks to decentralization. Who gives a fuck about sending a few micro transactions for free when governments worldwide are preventing people from using (or even continuing to own) their own fucking money?

Why does everyone get their panties in a bunch over some comment about the fucking reality regarding the existing rules of the network which require a hard fork to change, and ignore the real point of my post which was to call out people who are actually supporting a 51% attack on one prong of a chain existing after a possible contentious hard fork?

ok, so what will happen to my btc that are in my phone wallet? will they split if it forks or what?

Holliday, no one believes that shit. 99% of the people who have bought since the limit was put in place don't know anything about any of the code. They didn't "buy into" a block limit at all. What they did buy into was practically free transactions, which they don't have now that the blocks are full.

What everyone are missing-> consensus in a decentralized environment won't happen, what are you guys arguing about wasting your time? I guess not even Satoshi saw the possibility of a malicious party with enough incentive and power to veto the consensus.
2 years ago you could mine 1000 blocks with 30% of the current hash power and 2 years from now this hash rate will become 30% of total hash power then, but what gives the miners all these funds to insanely increase their hash rate? yes people's money, simple fact that if users/ people/ community stop paying miners what they're asking in price they will no longer be able to continue growing but yet all miners are doing is power play/ politics/ greed/ power hunger wanting to control, in case if you didn't know this is exactly what happened with the giant money organizations/ central banking/ private sectors/ rich families taking over the world economy system, and that is exactly what's happening only in total chaos/ decentralized one.
No rule/ no law no governor.

I think there is a very damn good reason why we need governments/ sheriffs/ police/ law enforcement, we're just too high on the weed we're smoking called "cash/BTC" so we can't see it yet.

So you decided to trade other objects of value for the ability to amend the block chain under the assumption that certain properties will "fixed" down the road via a hard fork?

A PDF document is more important than the code which implements the very protocol which every node on the network must abide by?

Those things makes perfect sense...

Oh... and another Bravo for ignoring the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about block size.

@Holliday:  Your post seemed to rely on the underlying assumption of 'what you signed up for'.     Sorry if I replied to the wrong part.  I get your points.  I wouldn't say youre wrong to take that view.  

The onus is on whoever splits (implements incompatible changes) to insure their fork is "clean". Attacking the other prong of the fork is a fucking disgraceful method to achieve those ends.

You've ignored the meat and potatoes of my post to quibble about who and how many people support certain size blocks and the motivations of someone we haven't heard from in 6 years. Bravo.

"We" is anyone who adopted Bitcoin with the 1 MB limit in place. What, are you just going to hand wave away the fact that it requires a hard fork to remove? Geeze...

Who is "we"?  You speak for a very small group of hardline small blockers.

Most Bitcoiners always assumed the limit was going to be raised sooner or later.

The limit was originally added by Satoshi as a temporary spam measure, and Satoshi wrote about
not only how an increased limit could be phased in with a few lines of code, but also  his vision
for how the network would scale.  This was long before you arrived, I assume.

Anyway after a clean split and it clear that "Bitcoin" is the large block version, you are free
to keep using your digital assets on the 1mb chain.

Logical arguments against big blocks == trolling.

I wouldn't waste keyboard strokes, when it comes down to it, we know how to prepare for and to mitigate against the various aggressive threats made by the BU proponents, I'm happy with forking away and using a totally different name and brand.

If that happened, when that coin wins due to technical merit (yet again), these thinly disguised wreckers will be forced to follow the "Bitcoin Reborn" coin with their meddling (yet again). Rinse and repeat, I would imagine. As long as we're determined to support the most valuable tech, there's not much they can really do, except continue to be increasingly less disruptive.

Some of us joined Bitcoin with the 1 MB block size limit in place. In other words, this is what we signed up for.

Now it's an "attack" because we don't want to make changes to the protocol we've accepted for all these years?

You are only calling it a "covert attack" because you need an excuse to attempt to justify using hash power to aggressively attack those who want to remain with the existing chain.

Refusing to make an incompatible change to an already existing protocol and functioning network is not aggression towards those who want to implement that change, therefore it's not an attack. Those who don't want to change are not actively preventing those who do want change from actually doing it.

Actively employing hash power in order to prevent a previously functioning network from continuing it's chain is, however, aggression towards the users of that chain, and therefore an attack. Those who do want change are actively preventing those who do not from continuing in peace.

We currently have a functioning network with existing rules in place. If you decide to make an incompatible change to those rules and thus create a new, separate network, that's your prerogative and I fully support your ability to do that. But when you start talking about aggressively attacking those users and miners who decide they are not interested in adopting an incompatible change and simply want to stick with the already existing, functioning network, you've gone too far.

Imagine there was no block size debate. Imagine a group came along and started loudly clamoring for a block reward increase. Imagine they convinced a few pool operators (enough for a majority of the hash rate) that a block reward increase was a good idea. Imagine that they implemented the change, and forked away from the rest of network. Now imagine that after the fork, those pool operators decided to attack the original chain to prevent it from functioning. You would be screaming bloody murder from the rooftops. Yet, when the incompatible change is something that you want, all sense of decency and civility goes out the window and you turn into a bloodthirsty idiot.

Anyone rationalizing using hashing power to attack a functioning network and it's user base is toxic to the community and should be called out for suggesting such appalling behavior.