Topic: Bitcoin 1mb or Bitcoin 2mb (Read 2743 times)

So because how I spend my cash isn't centralized and it doesn't go through the federal reserve when I pay the street vendor who then pays his supplier, our banking system isn't centralized. Got it.

-=-

China can not use IP addresses that ICANN has assigned to Argentina. Argentina can not use IP addresses that are assigned to Egypt.

Without an IP address, you are not on the Internet. ICANN is the sole entity that controls the assignment of IP addresses. Just like the federal reserve is the sole entity that controls the US dollar.

That's what makes them centralized. Not everything that uses their systems has to pass through them for the system to be centralized.

Your definition is incorrect,

centralized is a narrow view.. centralized = 1 entity, 1 central point.
decentralized is a wide view. it can be small distribution or wide distribution, but it there is any distribution with no single central point then its not centralized.

i still dont get why people cant grasp the basics that centralized =1 and decentralized is a sliding scale.. its not rocket science

No, you have a very narrow view of the word centralized to fit your specific point of view.

There are many protocols that run on top of the Internet that ICANN has nothing to do with, but the Internet is a network of computers that use the Internet Protocol - and both the addresses for the IP addresses needed for the network and the domain names we associate with them ultimately are controlled by a centralized authority called ICANN.

This is necessary, there isn't (yet) a decentralized way to do it.

Just because protocols that run on top of that network are not all centralized does not mean the network itself is not centralized. It is.

lol well the internet is not just DNS of domain names.. so to say the internet is centralized is to say EVERYTHING internet related goes through ICANN..

which we both know EVERYTHING does not go through ICANN. so essentially the internet is not centralized. its just distributed in a certain manner. but ICANN does not control it all.

which is the definition of decentralized.

centralized is if EVERYTHING went through a central point.

but anyway.. in april i hope to see a 2mb+segwit. because once malle is sorted. there are no excuses left not to increase the blocksize buffer

The PKI system requires domain names. Without domain names, there is no certificate authority infrastructure and MITM becomes cake.

Bitcoin uses a block validation process.

The only domain name validation process is DNSSEC which is centralized, ICANN owns the master signing key.

ICANN can reroute even DNSSEC signed domains if they so choose.

They can't however created a fraudulent blockchain. The blockchain has independent validation, at least full node clients.

Can they interfere with bitcoin? absolutely. Control it, no.

the internet isn't entirely dependent on domain names strictly speaking but in practice we all use them.
ICANN controls a tremendous amount of economic power by holding the keys to the brand names
and known web destinations but ultimately the internet could keep going without them.

in short, bitcoin is not decentralizd because ICANN control all the IP addresses.... ... ..... ... ..... ...... (think hard about what im subtly hinting at)
lol

if you disagree, then you have blown your own argument

Never said everything went through ICANN but if ICANN wants to take away a domain name they can, they are who you appeal to to take away someone's domain name.

Who controls the root servers? There are 13 of them. Sure they are geographically distributed, but who controls them?

Who has the private key to the DNSSEC signing key for the root servers?

They are the central authority for the Internet and yes, with their power over the root nameservers they can redirect all domain name based traffic anywhere they want. That's the power of centralization.

put it this way.. if ICANN is the central service of everything "internet", then law enforcement wont need to ask ISP's to hoard data. they can just ask ICANN...
because apparently.. you and lauda think everything goes through ICANN..

but i know Lauda has that mind set because he wants blockstream to be bitcoins version of ICANN and where other dev teams / businesses need to pay blockstream to be able to produce bitcoin based programs.

(blockstream has already tried to get a paid lawyer to post fud waffles that any implementation that is not blockstream must get Fincen regulated. (i laughed at that FUD))

The Internet does have a central authority. It's called ICANN

Something like namecoin could provide decentralization to the DNS system but that's not the standard DNS system.

With the current Internet design it can't provide decentralization to who gets what subnets.

im for 2 mb blocks to be honest as i dont want bitcoin tx fees to be raised as bitcoin has to be nearly free to use

im glad Lauda is not a dev team member and is just a blockstream fan boy..
here is another post by LAuda to prove his mis-understandings

in his mind there is just 1 ISP company who is the sole DNS and the soul Hosting datacenter.. he truly lacks understanding of the basics of the difference between centralized.. vs limited distribution and wide distribution decentralization.

he thinks its binary 1 or 0,  boolean true or false. he cant grasp that centralized=1 and decentralized is a sliding scale that is from 2(not colluding) to infinity..

so back on point..
1. the funny thing is that segwit is definitely not a capacity increase solution, but a temporary plaster until something else fills in the cut.
the even funnier thing is that segwits April release means that if blockstream wasnt so narrow minded. they could implement the 2mb code in the April version. knowing that malleability is sorted. and knowing 2mb buffer wont be set until ATLEAST May. thus there would be no problems with a 2mb+segwit

but no.. they want to mess around with bitcoin adding new bytes of data and flags to make bitcoin transactions more bloated to coax people away from bitcoin and onto LN, Liquid and other side chains.. increasing the transaction fee due to this, BEFORE even thinking about increasing blocksize... why? well they hope by 2017 people wont be using real bitcoin transactions so that blockstream can then make more excuses that larger blocksizes are not needed because they have successfully coaxed people away from bitcoin.

the real laughable thing is that Lauda and his flock of blockstream lovers say there are no capacity problems right now to need 2mb.. IF that were true (its not) that same argument can be used to say sidechains are not needed right now.
(the real answer to both sides is BUFFER to cover future possibilities of growth. not wait till the shit hits the fan)


2. about LN: if a transaction is not confirmed by a miner and relayed by ALL bitcoin nodes and not included in a block before it can be spent again... then its simply not a bitcoin transaction.
LN is logged by a single processor (channel owner) and not relayed to ALL nodes and can be respent without a single bitcoin blockchain confirmation

its only later(hours days or weeks) that the channel then sends out a real bitcoin transaction that is a organised culmination of movements of those LN transactions of the channel.

in short its not an altcoin, because there is no different chain.. its simple an OFFCHAIN solution.. (not bitcoin) and then having the balances reorganised on the bitcoin network later..
different network=not bitcoin. you might aswell compare LN to MTGox, rather than an altcoin

3. classic is bitcoin. just like bitcoinJ is bitcoin, just like all the other dozen implementations are bitcoin.. the part Lauda doesnt understand is that if the people move across (majority), then its the laggers (minority) who are left with their head in the sand grabbing at clams..
he doesnt quite get that for classic to be approved means the majority accept it. and by him and his ilk not moving with the majority.. they are the clam holders

not true it can be scaled directly to 2mb 4 mb 8mb and so on, there are various type of implementations, that can increase the optimization of a direct scalability, like SPV(Simplified payment verification)

If you mean that we won't get orders of magnitude increases without some potential issues, then I agree.
But as far as achieving a moderate increase with a high degree of robustness and speed of deployment, it would be ideal.
As many have said, I think we need both on chain and off chain scaling.

Correct, there are multiple ways of scaling Bitcoin. However, let's not forget to add that the way that it can scale via the block size limit is ridiculously inefficient and slow.

No Ln is not the only way to make it scale..it is one way but hasnt been developed yet.  Obviously block size increases are another way and do add capacity.

I personally think 1MB blocks are enough without the stress tests. Also 2MB blocks will eat up our storage space fast (double as 1MB blocks). Myself have even not downloaded the blockchain due to the big size.

BTW if miners don't mine zero transaction blocks then there's nothing to debate, as 1MB blocks are enough to accommodate the normal transactions!

Lightning Network is the only way to make Bitcoin scale. Making blocksize go from 1mb to 2mb solves absolutely nothing. You seem a bit confused about this and sound new, I recommend you do some reading on this before jumping on conclusions that may look like the right thing to do at first but then later on you realize it wasn't.

Nonsense. That's not what I meant. The current balances are effectively doubled and you could use your coins twice (in theory). This depends on how long the second chain lives. There was at least 1 double spend in the past because of a similar situation that I know of.

The consensus threshold for Classic is 75%.