Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 95. (Read 154787 times)

So you support having a properly implemented two-way-peg, but you don't support the research and development of a proper pruning method? Where is the logic behind that? Do you really think that the developers are incapable of finding a solution to the bloatchain problem before it actually becomes a problem

Why do I always get the impression that the anti-fork people wear horse glasses? Why do they think that all the potential issues that might arise will not find a solution in a decent amount of time? You forget that this is the first developing consensus network and that changes need to happen and challenges must be faced. This will make the network grow and learn from mistakes in the same time. By closing ourselves in an bubble we also deny our evolution.


Sure, but the good part is that if the 20MB fork becomes better then you will still have coins on the new hip-chain and everyone that will switch from the 1MB to the 20MB chain will be an early adopter. So it's a win win for everyone 

Well there's a time and a place but yeah good point. Can't argue with that.

Well, you're kinda reading bitcointalk, which is trolls and derpage all the way down, so...

If the minority end up using the 1MB chain, it will become just another altcoin. To my knowledge Gavin doesn't actively engage in destroying altcoins that I'm aware of, unless others know different.
Of course if the minority choose the 20MB, that will become the altcoin.

Just a reminder, from DeathAndTaxes' excellent post:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236


This completely settles the 'debate' over WHETHER the 1 MB restriction should be lifted. The only question is what should replace it.

So not wanting to wade through a bog of cheap shot point scoring scrawl to extract the real content is immature?

Mmmmmmmm.....  
 

Not sure what he wants, besides for bitcoin to succeed, obviously. But then that notion is subjective, again and again..
Should read it entirely and not take offense personally, be more mature.
Still it's quite fun imho. ^^

Yeah, same old story though. 99% of the post is trying to be witty, insulting people, score browny points, telling us how great he is etc...
I read through a few paragraphs and stopped. Which is shame because there is probably some good arguments buried deep in there somewhere inside.
If he wants to people to take him seriously, he'll need to up his game to a more professional level.

Gerald Davis is wrong. Here's why:

http://trilema.com/2015/gerald-davis-is-wrong-heres-why/

To fork or not to fork? That's not even the question..

I am sure he won't. He has load of important stuff to move onto.

The problem with the 1MB chain is that difficulty will be so high for the few miners left on it that it will take a year for diff to fall until 10 minute blocks are happening again.
Every 2016 blocks the diff can only fall 75%, so it won't be usable for several adjustments, and these will take massive amounts of time.

Basically your post is nicely written nonsense. The problem lies in power and control.
140 TPS might be enough in the upcoming years, but later it will not be. What you've also understood wrong is that the current TPS is not 4-7, it will average even less (which is horrible).

B: That "I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong" is a hilarious logical fallacy. Using your proposition as proof for your conclusion. You're not right because you've said that you're right.
Here's a quote for the 'bloatchain'..

By the time the chain starts becoming huge we would probably develop some pruning/compression techniques.

Also, this is pretty arrogant.

Where are you storing the sidechain? My question still applies.

WTF IS A BLOATCHAIN ?
youve completely missed the entire argument the blocks will stay the same size as now until there is another big rally and transactions to support such.....

I signed up for a Bitcoin that wasn't controlled by those who already have power.  I knew fuckin good and well that it wouldn't scale in a simplistic transaction rate manner while preserving almost anything about it that I liked (and which were highly marketed) and so did a lot of other of the more experienced early adopters I'll bet.

I'll lay 50/50 odds that Satoshi found that much of his early interest were starry-eyed fundamentalists and fed you folks a load of bullshit when he was caught patching in the 1MB.  He picked you as 'lead' for your Pillsbury Doughboy nature.  Hearn was one of the few guys who actually saw what was going on, but for whatever reason or set of reasons his wishes for the solution are that it be brought under control and somehow he caught your ear.

Why don't you do one simple thing:  Say clearly where you want to see the solution end up, compute the size you need to do so, and do the hard fork one time.

If 140 tps is where you want to stop, say so.  If 2000 tps is where you want to stop, say and do that.  If 20,000, say that.  Now you are playing both ends by leaving this value open.  You let people say 'oh, we can handle 140 and remain decentralized.' and also 'oh, we can scale as needed.'  It's slimy and it sucks and you should be ashamed.

I think you won't do this for the same reason you gently pull a hooked fish into the dip-net rather than jerk it around which scares it and risks a broken fishing line.  There is very little other reason if you are going to demand a fork before any real transaction fees happen.

Initial examples of sidechains will probably be out in a few months.  Long before the 1MB becomes a problem (if it ever really would.)  A properly implemented two-way-peg makes a sidecoin an excellent proxy for a bitcoin and offers a true potential to both scale and to keep Bitcoin lite and defensible.  It also provides the potential to keep proof-of-work happening on Bitcoin even if as the simplistic economics fail (as they are now from what I read.)  I have not heard much from you about that, and I have every expectation that you are fully able to see through the nonsense of the idiots here on trolltalk.  All I see is you working double-time to hard-fork, and it's awfully tempting to believe that sidechains have you in a panic for fear that they would work great.

For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another.  If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork.  As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like.  That's how I see it.

---

I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end.  I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth.  As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth.

How large do you think the blocks need to be?

Edit: Will you be supporting any efforts to kill off the 1mb chain after the fork? Sorry last edit

Thank you. Keep doing what you are doing!

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:


If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

And what makes you think we would agree?

Just because we agree with Gavin when he makes a sane decision doesn't mean we agree with him when he makes an insane one.

I don't see why the Bitcoin fork would bother you anyway.
Remember...