Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 99. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Lauda on February 05, 2015, 08:31:19 AM

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236

Yeah, at best 2 to 4 tps using 1MB. That's even worse than I thought.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: ?? on ??

I'm for increase of block size, even if I believe Bitcoin to be a store of value that you won't use so often to transact directly.

But ~5 transactions per second is not enough.

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain, but 5 ts seams really to low for me, and as it was explained before, if we don't do this, we will loose ability to transact directly.

The worst part of it all is that the current limit doesn't even support 5 TPS. According to D&T it is even lower.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236

Pretty much wins against all those 'anti' arguments. He pretty much explained almost all aspects relevant to the fork.

Yet 1 more time:
Increasing the block size limit by a factor of 20 does not increase the size of the blockchain by the same factor! The chain will grow gradually over time.

altcoin hitler

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: R2D221 on February 05, 2015, 08:21:58 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain

Why not? I think that's the ultimate goal (even if a little unrealistic at this point).

R2D221

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: ?? on ??

We mustn't try to include worldwide transactions in the blockchain

Why not? I think that's the ultimate goal (even if a little unrealistic at this point).

altcoin hitler

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 06:58:11 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 05, 2015, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 05, 2015, 06:48:46 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro 74%
71 anti 26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.

Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

This is so wrong, you need to read more than 1 page. The change would bring no immediate change, the only time we would see any change is when the previous blocks would have been full but instead of the transactions being delayed by a block and clogging it increases in size. For the Size to get to even 5mb a block would probably take a year or 2. By the time the it gets larger our Hard drives and bandwidth will grow with it, so no it will not make it hard to meet the requirements and it doesn't need to increase their system all the time probably just increase your hard drive within the next 5 years (Which i assume most do with or without noticing)

Quote from: grau on February 05, 2015, 03:26:03 AM

The OP gives a valid technical argument for raising block size limit, but is neglecting a financial argument against it.

The miners' income has to be greater than the cost of their work. Miners' income is inflation now, but is expected to be replaced by fees,
since inflation halves every four years. Purchasing power of new coins might be sustained for a while but must converge to zero in the limit.

Transaction fees exist only because there is a competition for block space. Eliminating that competition eliminates the fees and with that mining.

Therefore block space has to become and remain a scarce asset.

please tell me more how my harddrive magically grows

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 05, 2015, 07:44:44 AM

Extremely good post by D&T, worth a read...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236

Quote from: altcoin hitler on February 05, 2015, 07:54:33 AM

So that's your best response to D&T's post.
*facepalm*

altcoin hitler

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Extremely good post by D&T, worth a read...
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: LeMiner on February 05, 2015, 07:13:47 AM

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 06:58:11 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 05, 2015, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 05, 2015, 06:48:46 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro 74%
71 anti 26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.

Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

It's hilarious how you didn't bother to respond to even the slightest of sense that buries all your arguments against the fork into the ground, for example, my previous argument.

you fell off the filter as tl,dr

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 06:58:11 AM

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

Listen, I'm up for changing the cap, but if the majority choose to stick with the current cap I would choose that chain. It's the sensible thing to do, it's not being a sheep, it's being wise.
Stay stubborn and inflexible, and you will lose.

LeMiner

member

Activity: 139

Merit: 10

Quote from: homo homini lupus on February 05, 2015, 06:58:11 AM

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 05, 2015, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 05, 2015, 06:48:46 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro 74%
71 anti 26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.

Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

It's hilarious how you didn't bother to respond to even the slightest of sense that buries all your arguments against the fork into the ground, for example, my previous argument.

Buffer Overflow

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1016

I hope everyone realises that at some point we will need to change over to a quantum safe keys such as Lamport signatures to protect our private keys. These will invariably require more block space.
I'm not an expert on the subject so please correct me if I'm wrong on this matter.

homo homini lupus

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: pawel7777 on February 05, 2015, 06:53:43 AM

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 05, 2015, 06:48:46 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro 74%
71 anti 26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

The vast majority won't use Gavincoin with that requirements of hardware and bandwidth. Nobody is going to upgrade their system all the time just to be able to run Gavincoin.

Lol - gavincoin doesn't even have a usecase. And also doesn't have users. The only users will be the current bagholders and that's it. There is zero probability it can compete with more efficient coins for new users.

Lol. The poll on the thread is just a poll "am i a sheep that follows the flock?" - yes or no

lmao

pawel7777

legendary

Activity: 2436

Merit: 1561

Quote from: CoinCidental on February 05, 2015, 06:48:46 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is

If you ignore 'agnostics' and 'DGAFs' you'll get:

202 pro 74%
71 anti 26%

But let's not pretend this poll is a solid indicator of anything. The vast majority of users is probably not aware of technical details and implications.

CoinCidental

legendary

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1000

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

only 20% is anti

the rest dont even know enough to vote one way or the other

so the argument could be made that 80%+ will be in favour when they learn more about how important this is

Sitarow

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1047

Quote from: amincd on February 05, 2015, 06:31:48 AM

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

This is why the fork needs to happen sooner rather than later. The longer the temporary 1 MB (anti-spam) restriction is in place, the more people will come to think that it is a critical part of Bitcoin that needs to be made permanent. And the larger the community is, the harder it is to gain everyone's support for a hard fork. A hard fork will never have as much support as it does now.

You do realize that the old btc network will die simply because of the size of the network difficulty? If anything the old nodes would presents a great opportunity to test the 51% double spend.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: zimmah on February 05, 2015, 06:27:35 AM

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

This is why the fork needs to happen sooner rather than later. The longer the temporary 1 MB (anti-spam) restriction is in place, the more people will come to think that it is a critical part of Bitcoin that needs to be made permanent. And the larger the community is, the harder it is to gain everyone's support for a hard fork. A hard fork will never have as much support as it does now.

zimmah

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1005

60% is pro, according to the polls, and yet the minority complains about gavin not caring about the userbase?

can someone please just send these idiots to another planet?

davout

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1008

1davout

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on February 05, 2015, 06:22:20 AM

along the altcoin fork keeping the current 1MB cap

You seem to be living in a parallel universe where your statements become true just because you state them.

Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 99. (Read 154787 times)