Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 80. (Read 154787 times)

I view this as paranoia. While you and tvbcof are using lots of services outside of TOR you don't want to use Bitcoin outside of TOR. Why don't you try to impose TOR on all websites if we are at this subject? Only limit only to Bitcoin? Why should the network comply with your view and fears? Why don't you let the network decide this as it should happen?

Exactly. 30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.

IMO 10 MB is too much, maybe 5 MB.

You need to be a bit  more subtle and btw

Its not ripple its monero... and I'm not going anywhere. Smiley

Satoshi Nakamoto is not John Nash. Nash is 86 years old. Please discuss your fringe theories in a different thread. This is really not the place to be pushing them. We're discussing something serious, and important for Bitcoin and the future of cryptocurrency, and you're trying to get everyone to listen to your weird theories about Satoshi's identity, and why this somehow means we shouldn't allow Bitcoin to scale.

it has to happen, that the people who doesnt want to destroy Bitcoin with a useless hardfork atm, are not blind by veils of greed and world domination and happen to enjoy true freedom of choice.

hope you like my sub-avatar text, its in homage of you paranoid schizos that think altcoins are out to get you.

get a grip, you people cant even quote who disagrees with you anymore.

Nash's thesis of ideal money is that by extensively studying the history of money we can realize how to extrapolate a solution that will lead us into the next evolution of it.

Then he perfectly describes bitcoin.

And then of course an anonymous paper arises because that is how we implement experiments to theories right (peer review?)?

Satoshi isn't a real person.  I am sorry, your religious is only that.  

7 TRANSACTIONS PER SECOND ...........SAYS IT ALL REALLY
Bitcoin is already deemed unsuitable for some projects (lighthouse etc ) because the blocks not capable

dont be tricked by any fools who argue monero or litecoin or some alt will have to be used.theyre only against removing this restriction because they already own the alts they would like to replace btc

^ I strongly disagree with you. I think following your advice, and straying from practical matters, into highly theoretical musings, will simply paralyze the ability of the community to come to any sort of consensus. I also find your dismissal of Satoshi's role in inventing Bitcoin to be disingenuous.

We all know where Satoshi Nakamoto stood: he wanted the limit increased and for Bitcoin to scale up to handle thousands of transactions per second (rather than the current 3 per second).

another noob Q - is this the biggest problem surrounding btc at the moment? is there another big pressing issue gavin or others are worrying about?

I see a lot of problems with a 20MB block.
The blockchain database could grow to 1000GB instead of 200GB per year.
Blockchain spam could be a much worse problem.
If the bitcoin decentralized database grows too big it will be more centralized, centralization is a very bad thing.
The blockchain security will be weaker, as the block reward for miners halves, and miners have to depend more and more on mining fees instead of the block reward, by having a 20MB block there will be little motivation to pay any transactions fees at all, causing lots of miners to quit weakening security. With a 1MB block if you are buying something that represents a large amount of money like a car, house, computer, etc you will be motivated to pay a higher fee for a quicker transaction, and for a micro transactions representing something of very little value, it will not be a problem if you have to wait a longer time than usual for a confirmation to confirm the transaction, but on the other hand for a transaction with a tiny value for example a 1 mBTC  if you do not wait for confirmation the risk is little do to the amount.
In the very futuristic event that a block were to be generating more than 25 BTC in rewards based on fees, this would imply a large fee  to get the transaction though in the next block in such an event it could be considered to increase the block size only and only if the current block size would become a problem.

But as things stand now, 1 MB block limit is not a problem, and in the near future it will help secure the network by motivating the miners, only in a very far future it could be needed to be increased, but in such a case then a study would need to take place since in a far future the block reward could be 2 BTC and most of the miners reward could be based on fees as Satoshi had originally planed.

As of today for each block reward, 25 BTC are the block reward, and only on average 0.1 BTC are from fees, the amount of 0.1 BTC would go down to near 0, and that will be a problem for the security of the blockchain once the block reward is something like 3 BTC.

Another thing to consider, today people using modems and low bandwidth can be bitcoin nodes, with a 20MBblock they will need at least moderate bandwidth.

The 20MB block might be needed in the far future but not now.

Also a fork risks the price of bitcoin going down since some may stay on the other side of the fork.

It is better to concentrate on bitcoin gaining adoption instead of solving a problem that today does not exist.

You don't come in a thread, and not read any literature and tell Nash or Satoshi how economics, cryptography, math, gold etc. works.

So because you only see in Bitcoin just only one application that is money we should all agree to that?

I read through the posts by Gavin and I couldn't see that he was pushing forward on this beyond merely describing one plan.  The response by the other guy calling his plan Gavincoin and whatnot seems quite over the top.  Did I miss something?  Has Gavin done something more here than brought this up and talked about potential ramifications?

Not saying to anyone get rid of anyone here but this is very disingenuous, LaudaM is another blind pro-forker (since when the BTC community was this divided?) and had a big flashy GAW/Paycoin ad on the signature for months, the same argument could be used, and he had the balls to say he didn't knew what GAW was and was only whoring his signature, not really my problem but his posts are of shallow quality, in comparison with the logical arguments from iCEBREAKER people like you are fighting, I have to denounce these discrepancies.

We are trying to have an intelligent conversation with well read and mature persons.  Why do you continually drown us out?  And why do the mods put up with your name calling and incessant voice that lacks-REASON?

"TOR" is shorthand for low-bandwidth connections, whether privacy-enhanced darkweb internets-within-the-internet or plain old slow DSL.

You need to keep up.  This has already addressed here:

I know this is hard for you, so try reading this quote s l o w l y .

The blockchain database could grow to 1000GB instead of 200GB per year.

When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is I think Bitcoin will be great if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month.

If 2 MB is all that can be agreed on now, then it's better to schedule that hard fork ASAP rather than agree on something marginally higher in 6-12 months. I personally think that 10 MB would probably be fine, though I know that there are many people who would disagree with me.

I am also open to different proposals on exactly what to replace the current 1 MB restriction with, in order to make the right trade off between distribution of full nodes, and transaction throughput.