... Keep drinking the kool-aid ...
... That's some fine kool-aid that you've been drinking. ...
... Keep drinking the kool-aid.
... drinking the trashcoin kool-aid. ...
... Say Kool-Aid again,
Topic: Bitcoin round table - page 2. (Read 2889 times)
and this time they are switching from existing core nodes, core nodes counts are dropping
Jan 29:Classic 0.11.2: 22 Nodes
Core (all versions total): 3796
Other: 1695
Feb 10:
Classic 0.11.2: 589
Core (all versions total): 3825
Other: 1395.
"Switching", "dropping".
This is your new Federal Reserve 
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7
and what would you call them if they backed Classic? https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7
This is your new Federal Reserve
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.rtyxn51c7
and what would you call them if they backed Classic?
Quote
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Suppose that everything here is true, let's see how today's technology are capable of
In 1996, the optical fiber achieved 1Tbps in labs, and average home have 28Kbps modem. That's about 35 million:1. 20 years later, optical fiber achieved 255TB in labs
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber
And average home have 10Mbps, that's 25 million:1. So it scales roughly at the same speed (because the backbone need to handle millions of users), grows at 30% per year
So if the bandwidth requirement grows at 30% per year then the technology will always be able to handle it along the way. Currently we are at almost 100% per year increase of transaction volume, so in 7 years you would need 1Gbps to handle, but that is already available in some area today, so at least in a decade there will not be a problem
that's ridiculous. you're basing this on the best possible scenario, and suggesting that the entire network should be running nodes on the best connections in the world. you can't begin to prove that technological improvements and internet infrastructure will keep pace. bitcoin, like any other engineering project and large scale system, should be planned with the worst case scenarios in mind. not the best case scenarios.
i'm smelling some allusion to moore's law, so i'll just leave this here:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/
And there is a point people usually forget: We are already at 1million + users today, if the amount of users doubles each year, then in 10 years you will have 1 billion people in the world using bitcoin, which is highly unlikely. So it seems that if we don't have a bottleneck in the next 5 years, we will never have it
i'm having a tough time understanding the point youre making here.
Quote
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Suppose that everything here is true, let's see how today's technology are capable of
In 1996, the optical fiber achieved 1Tbps in labs, and average home have 28Kbps modem. That's about 35 million:1. 20 years later, optical fiber achieved 255TB in labs
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber
And average home have 10Mbps, that's 25 million:1. So it scales roughly at the same speed (because the backbone need to handle millions of users), grows at 30% per year
So if the bandwidth requirement grows at 30% per year then the technology will always be able to handle it along the way. Currently we are at almost 100% per year increase of transaction volume, so in 7 years you would need 1Gbps to handle, but that is already available in some area today, so at least in a decade there will not be a problem
And there is a point people usually forget: We are already at 1million + users today, if the amount of users doubles each year, then in 10 years you will have 1 billion people in the world using bitcoin, which is highly unlikely. So it seems that if we don't have a bottleneck in the next 5 years, we will never have it
Storage and CPU/memory are much less a concern since you can just add more of it without permission
Say, why is the title "Satoshi round table"?
AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year, and Satoshi Roundtable 2 will be held at the end of this month.
The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.
AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year, and Satoshi Roundtable 2 will be held at the end of this month.
The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.
Thanks for pointing out the error, I just corrected it, but I can not change the replies
Say, why is the title "Satoshi round table"?
AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year, and Satoshi Roundtable 2 will be held at the end of this month.
The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.
AFAIK, Satoshi Roundtable 1 was held on Feb last year, and Satoshi Roundtable 2 will be held at the end of this month.
The letter posted on Medium seems to be associated with Bitfury's Consensus Roundtable, which is a different beast altogether.
Let's look at this list closely
Satoshi 0.11.2 is the latest version released on November 13, that's long before the hongkong conference and Classic announcement, so that's almost all of the actively upgraded nodes, 41.73% of all nodes
Satoshi 0.11.0, 0.11.1 and 0.10.2 are slower upgraded nodes, users do not actively update, most possibly unattended mining nodes
Satoshi 0.12 should be luke_jr fan's version because of RBF, but it is only 2.75% of total nodes, so it is possible that even blockstream fans are not there yet, otherwise it is not looking so bright for blockstream
Classic 0.11.2 just published a few days and now it is 13.96%, 5 times more than satoshi 0.12, and is already 1/3 of all actively updated nodes
i believe that all the concerns against the limit increase are a bit fud
look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say
look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say
centralization is one central point.. bitcoin will be decentralized by its very definition. but its DISTRIBUTION of that decentralization can be reduced
even segwit can cause a reduction in distribution of fullnodes. by allowing the 5000 nodes to think its ok to not be fullnodes(archival mode) and instead be just compatible (no witness mode).
1=centralize
2(unrelated not coluding)= limited distribution decentralized
10,000= wide distribution decentralized
decentralization is not a true or false question.
its a sliding scale
i believe that all the concerns against the limit increase are a bit fud
look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say
look at this https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy
only maybe the "centralization point" have something right to say
Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
Off topic: What degree do you have? Are you another economist, art teacher, or something else irrelevant trying to spread your "wisdom" on technology?
lauda fails to show statistics that show that the internet is still at dialup speeds. or home computers are not powerful enough.. and instead resorts to character assassination.
so here are some details
its 2016 not 2001.. people can play online games in HD(upload data for character movements, directions of fire and bullet tragectory on a constant bases (not a 1scond webpage analogy that gavin stupidly made)), while on teamspeak(voice upload), while also streaming it to twitch in HD (large upload).. simultaneously..
so that debunks bandwith..
also bitcoin runs on a raspberry pi right now. so a intel celeron laptop is twice as powerful. and a intel i7 standard desktop is twice the power again.. so that means standard desktops are atleast 4x more powerful and able to handle bitcoin at 4x the scale.. so 2x the scale is no issues
Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're not a fan of reading comprehension, are you?
Why are most Blockstream sockpuppets retards?
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
It can't. Stop spreading false information.Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
This post says that if Bitcoin were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second the blockchain would grow by 1 GB per hour. Most "unlimited bandwidth" broadband providers actually limit your bandwidth at peak traffic times. You only find out when you try using massive bandwidth for extended periods and get a warning from them.
Just curiosity. Does ETH has scalability issues? Same as BTC or different? And monero?
Some link pinpointing to it?
Some link pinpointing to it?
https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/blob/6cb2fe00a61273b1b3807bf16d5ac6e51b690826/pages/white-paper/%5Benglish%5D-white-paper.md
"One common concern about Ethereum is the issue of scalability. Like Bitcoin, Ethereum suffers from the flaw that every transaction needs to be processed by every node in the network. With Bitcoin, the size of the current blockchain rests at about 15 GB, growing by about 1 MB per hour. If the Bitcoin network were to process Visa's 2000 transactions per second, it would grow by 1 MB per three seconds (1 GB per hour, 8 TB per year). Ethereum is likely to suffer a similar growth pattern, worsened by the fact that there will be many applications on top of the Ethereum blockchain instead of just a currency as is the case with Bitcoin, but ameliorated by the fact that Ethereum full nodes need to store just the state instead of the entire blockchain history."
^^How's about yourself? What degrees do *you* have?
...
P.S. Lauda, I'm yet to see a line of code from you. Til I do, am assuming you're one of the ignorant unwashed you love to shit on.
P.S. Lauda, I'm yet to see a line of code from you. Til I do, am assuming you're one of the ignorant unwashed you love to shit on.
Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
You're the one spreading who's full of "bullshit". Your connection has nothing to do with what the networks capabilities. Good luck validating 150 MB blocks right now. It is even possible to create a block that would take more than 10 minutes to validate at 2 MB because of the quadratic scaling.I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
Off topic: What degree do you have? Are you another economist, art teacher, or something else irrelevant trying to spread your "wisdom" on technology?
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
It can't. Stop spreading false information.Bullshit. My home internet broadband could handle 150MB+ blocks.
I know that it's not the case for most users, but 1MB is a joke.
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
It can't. Stop spreading false information.No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!
I don't see how this is "centralization"? Do you know what that means? No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!
What if I told you that keeping bitcoin crippled will assure the centralization (and later failure) of bitcoin as it doesn't allow more participants to hit the network?
Consider that currently about 1-2M people own BTC. There are about !!3300M!! internet connected users currently.
The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.
Blockstream is incentivized to keep the protocol crippled and under their control, so sidestepping them is highly important.
If it won't happen bitcoin will remain centralized.
Also, please consider that centralization/decentralization is not an exact property, but a spectrum.
No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!
The BlockstreamCore apologists should open their eyes.
Bitcoin needs a fork or its network effect will disappear.
Bitcoin needs a fork or its network effect will disappear.
Jump to: