Topic: Bitcoin round table - page 3. (Read 2889 times)

pulling random numbers out of your ass,,(700mill users, 1 tx a day) where did you even get these numbers from

your putting a utopian dream of 20+ years time, to try defending blockstreams greed of 2016 decisions.. really!
your numbers have nothing to do with any possible reality of 2016-2018, get a grip

the debate for the next 2 years is basically 2mb+segwit (approx 4mb capacity emulation)

currently 1mb allows 2000 tx(average) a block. 144 blocks a day.

thats basically acting as if 288,000 transactions a day.. you can interpret it as only 288,000 doing 1 transaction a day or 2million people making a transaction every 7 days.

with 2mb. thats upto 576,000 tx a day potential.

with 2mb segwit. its initially 1million tx a day, and then downplayed to 500,000 once things like payment codes and other added variables/constants added to the tx.

with 1mb segwit its initially 500,000 tx a day and then downplayed to 250,000 once  things like payment codes and other added variables/constants added to the tx.

Okay "X is better than Y", where X represents Segwit and Y represents Classic/2MB blocks. That's the right way to see it then I guess. You're right, it will become a bigger problem. However, scaling via the block size will never be able to solve this problem because it is very inefficient. Here are some quick calculations that I did a while back:
350x365 = 127 750 GB per year (i.e. 127 TB). This can be avoided with the second layer.

All I'm trying to say is that no one will be able to know what the full effect will be down the road.  It's still all very experimental, and to say that Classic is the only proposal that will ever be needed from here on out is not very smart.  I know that the 2 MB proposal is a "kick the can down the road" approach, nor am I saying that I support that... I just know that as more blocks continue to max out, and confirmation times continually slow down as more people are using bitcoins; the worse it is for bitcoin.

I really wasn't trying to argue necessarily about the block size debate itself... I was just trying to get my point across that governance of Bitcoin is progressively getting more sketchy to me and seems to become more centralized.  I know that word pisses off a lot of people and I'm not necessarily saying that it is full out centralized just yet... but you can't doubt that it has slowly but surely gotten to be that way.

I just don't necessarily like when people say that "X" is the only way to go and there is no other alternative because that is just the way it is.  Even though this problem doesn't seem like much right now, the more people start using bitcoin, the bigger this problem becomes... so it's better to fix it now... am I not right?

transactions are not going through in 10 minutes.. some are waiting an hour
are you that blind


segwit is not a scalability solution. it is just a temporary gimmick.. removing 70bytes of signature one day and later adding more bytes later with the other features.
its like going on a diet for a week and then going to an all-you-can-eat for a month


yep they are more interested in making their premined sidechains be instantly worth the same price as bitcoin (greedy BStards). their aim is a firesale, bait and switching people over to their premines.

they dont care about bitcoin scaleability.. they want their billion dollar premine profits, by making bitcoin unscalable and costly to use to switch people over

lauda is still on the mindset that its a core vs classic.. he needs to learn that CORE can, should and eventually need to move to 2mb.. even if its a 2mb+segwit. that the only real debate is WHEN..

1. There is no issue right now. Transactions are going through and the network is functioning properly. Is this not the case?
2. Saying "agree to disagree" doesn't invalidate my claim, it just tells me that you have no arguments. A 2 MB block size proposal is not a solution, it is kick of the can down the road.
3. You do realize that the development is not solely focused on the scaleability?  Their announcement states the following:
I never said that the people who signed that statement were engineers.

1. Really? No issue at all to speak of? ; 2. Agree to disagree ; 3.  If you are saying that 1 & 2 are true, then why would there be a need for a "copy-paste" from Core... What exactly are you talking about?  If there is no issue at hand, then there wouldn't be a "debate" at all...   There is most certainly a debate.


Look, I know this has been discussed for a while... and from what I'm gathering is that you are in support to allow this "round table" to be the only ones who have their voices heard, and to have this "round table" be the only ones to fix and build "the spaceship going to the moon" that you have quoted before, comparing them to the "well informed engineers" and us to "tax payers".

You keep quoting that...

Stop reading /r/btc, thank me later. Apparently everyone that disagrees is a 'nobody' but Gavin, Rizun and Garzik are relevant 'gods'. Enough of the attacks already.
Another employed account? Interesting.

---

---

1. There is no issue at hand; 2. There is no "fix" from Classic; 3. There is no plan of action from Classic aside from 'copy-paste the works of Core'. What "ways" are you exactly talking about?
The block size debate has been discussed for years. "Satoshi round table" isn't making any decisions, they have just voiced their opinion. What are you talking about?

The main problem is that it's not under  the control of Borgstream. -s

Sorry if it was posted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/458x1w/who_is_who_in_the_signed_fud_letter_pushed_by/

Seems like part of that $50M borgstream funding went straight to bribing idiots and spreading FUD in media.

I guess it's really an "agree to disagree" type of thing. 

I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.

So if you want someone to represent you in government, would you want a handful of "informed" government officials to make that decision for you?  Of course not.

If you were one of the well informed engineers building that spaceship to the moon and it needed to be done in a certain amount of time; would you like your well "informed" bosses, that knows they can't afford more engineers, to tell you that you should work overtime to build it without pay? Of course not.

To just simply accept something because your "superiors" should know more than you, and hence need to keep your mouth shut is what a dictatorship is...

Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.

until they update.. we cannot judge what direction they want to go. so assuming they want to stay is unfair.. leaving them in the undecided category is more fair. but when they update then the undecided will make their intentions known.. untill then.. we just dont know so should not assume

this make more sense, so it seems that the majority the undecided want to remain with current 1mb limit, if they remain undecided

i means they can not remain undecided forever, there must be a deadline right?

can someone explain to me what is wrong with the classic proposal, i currently run a core node and am thinking of running classic, is it not the case that the 1mb cap is slowing bitcoin down?  how can we move to mass adoption if we dont up scale bitcoin.....?

This proposal, that creates more complexity in the system, needs its own thread though.

That is definitely not the case. It is not that hard to fool people to support something (take Classic for example) that isn't needed/is unsafe/other.

I think this "industry", that I guess has been created, should propose a certain list of electable proposals that people can vote on.  Now, how we would be able to do this is another topic, and could possibly do this by a form election system that uses a sort of "block chain" as well.  This way people can see, verify, and confirm votes that are being submitted.

I feel the best way to do this is to hold an "election" of some sort, and probably would be better to do all of this before the halving begins in the summer.  I just feel that this is the best solution to all of this... Then, whenever bitcoin reaches another problem in the future, devs can then hold another "election", and so on.

People who are on here and pay attention to bitcoin in general aren't stupid... I feel that when deciding between multiple block size proposals, a democratically elected proposal is the best choice.

It wasn't and the rich people can't really force anything. There is no central authority. I've updated my post.
The industry is trying to work with the developers to find the best solutions. What exactly do you want here? Random aliases on the forums and reddit deciding? They aren't changing any fundamental rules, nor would the users agree on it.

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed.  To say that the only people who can "vote", in a sense, are the people who have acquired the most capital during these years Bitcoin has been around is seriously fucked up.  Also, miners doesn't really seem to "vote" with their hashing power and distribution of nodes... they "vote" by bitching and complaining and holding threats over the Bitcoin community that they will just shut it all down if they don't get their way or reach a compromise... at least that's what I'm understanding from this whole situation, I could very well be wrong... but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

I'll go ahead and disclose that I have stopped and will never get back into mining because of lack of capital, but I think everyone who is in this Bitcoin "economy" should be able to participate and reach a conclusion just as much as the people with the most "capital".

Big time miners seem to have these solutions that will never "fail", but the reality is is that we all don't know what to do in tackling this... and all of what is being proposed to fix the block size is "theoretical" and "philosophical" in a sense.  People forget that this is still a new project that everyone should be a part of, not a fixed system that should be "governed" by the most powerful people in terms of wealth in BTC. 

“A sum of money is a leading character in this tale about people, just as a sum of honey might properly be a leading character in a tale about bees. [...] Thus the [Bitcoin] dream turned belly up, turned green, bobbed to the scummy surface of cupidity unlimited, filled with gas, went bang in the noonday sun.”

This is not really centralized and it works. You have two options: 1. Vote with your hashing power; 2. Vote by running nodes. You can't really blame Bitcoin if you lack the capital to compete with others.
Judging from the situation that we're presented with, the majority still supports Core and a lot of the users don't really care (i.e. aren't involved in 'politics').

---

---

Updated post.