You also do not know me, and what kind of a person I am. I care very much for the third world, it is part of the reason why i devoted such a large part of my life studying political philosophy, since many of the problems of the third world are caused by the first. I believe that Bitcoin can solve many of these problems as well. People in the third world do not need to run full nodes in order to be included in the Bitcoin economy, thinking that poor African people for instance need to be able to run full nodes is unrealistic.
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 113. (Read 378996 times)
You also do not know me, and what kind of a person I am. I care very much for the third world, it is part of the reason why i devoted such a large part of my life studying political philosophy, since many of the problems of the third world are caused by the first. I believe that Bitcoin can solve many of these problems as well. People in the third world do not need to run full nodes in order to be included in the Bitcoin economy, thinking that poor African people for instance need to be able to run full nodes is unrealistic.
5 years later:
PS:
The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.
I can tell you that IGoogle & Amazon have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around methem. So my life and my their experience and that of the people around methem does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.
PS:
The repeated argument to ignoramus (Andreas Antonopoulos) are the source of much lulz over here.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.
We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.
Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.
These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
Boy you are something else !
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.
We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.
Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.
These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.
Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos
Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon.
You are coming across like a propagandist with your extremist position. This is not productive for constructive dialogue. Stating that your position is one of fact and that nobody should be able to disagree with you is false, since this question depends on our understanding of the technicalities of Bitcoin combined with our subjective ideologies, our subjective ideologies which include the concepts of decentralization and financial freedom are not in the realm of fact but are products of our subjective ideologies instead.
I can tell you that I have absolutely no problems running my full node and neither do the people around me. So my life and my experience and that of the people around me does serve as a counterfactual to what you are saying. Of course some people will not be able to run full nodes forever but we should not expect them to especially when the sacrifice that this would require would be to great. With sacrifice I am referring to limiting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about.
"I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy"
I could've posted it without using the post header, but thought it would be funnier with it. Apologize? For what? A joke? I thought it was pretty spot on
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
I disagree and we have discussed this extensively already so maybe we can just agree to disagree.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.
It's not a matter of agreement, a lot of people have stopped running their nodes for these reasons and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact.
We are not conjecturing about whether they will stop or not, this already happens, I know many cases myself and they are all over the place in this forum and reddit.
Ask people who stopped running their nodes why the did they stop.
These are facts to deal with, not to agree or disagree.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about.
"I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy"
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
That was me actually anticipating your answer which seeing what you posted right above I was quite correct about.
"I disagree because opinion & anecdotal fallacy"
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
Obviously I do not support your extremist position that blocks over 200KB are to large. I think that Bitcoin can support much larger blocks without compromising decentralization and financial freedom.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.
increasing the blocksize up to the point that our technology will allow so that it does not compromise the principles of decentralization and financial freedom.
We are already well past this point, as many people have stopped running nodes because they couldn't justify the expense and the inconvenience of having their connection seriously burdened.
Now the question is not compromising these principles much more, because past 200KB or so they are already compromised.
Let's not even question this again because it's well known by now.
Is Bitcoin broken, really? Or, is it just its governance that is broken? Could the argument be solved by something as easy as a coin flip or roe-sham-bo? Or, will some form of parliamentary structure do the trick? These are probably the more significant issues affecting Bitcoin that need to be resolved than block size and forks, in my opinion. If the community is broken, then Bitcoin is broken....
We still have about 6 months to solve this problem if there is further development of side chains, which can be used to alleviate the pressure on the main chain.
Is Bitcoin broken, really? Or, is it just its governance that is broken? Could the argument be solved by something as easy as a coin flip or roe-sham-bo? Or, will some form of parliamentary structure do the trick? These are probably the more significant issues affecting Bitcoin that need to be resolved than block size and forks, in my opinion. If the community is broken, then Bitcoin is broken....
We still have about 6 months to solve this problem if there is further development of side chains, which can be used to alleviate the pressure on the main chain.
Is Bitcoin broken, really? Or, is it just its governance that is broken? Could the argument be solved by something as easy as a coin flip or roe-sham-bo? Or, will some form of parliamentary structure do the trick? These are probably the more significant issues affecting Bitcoin that need to be resolved than block size and forks, in my opinion. If the community is broken, then Bitcoin is broken....
The problems that the Bitcoin community are facing are primarily political in nature. I do think however that this is a part of its growing pains and it is a necessary aspect of its growth and evolution. I found this video by Vinay Gupta very informative.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc
Is Bitcoin broken, really? Or, is it just its governance that is broken? Could the argument be solved by something as easy as a coin flip or roe-sham-bo? Or, will some form of parliamentary structure do the trick? These are probably the more significant issues affecting Bitcoin that need to be resolved than block size and forks, in my opinion. If the community is broken, then Bitcoin is broken....
using hard drive space as a limitation in regards to the blocksize debate seems misguided, bandwidth and latency would become bottlenecks long before hard drive space would become an issue for most people. It is possible to fit more then two hundred copies of the blockchain on an 8TB hard drive. Hard drive space certainly should not and is not a limiting factor in regards to the blocksize debate, especially when compared to bandwidth and latency.
Yep, couldn't have said it better: bandwidth and internet availability as a whole are the issues. More to the point, hard disk technology is possibly set to undergo somewhat of a renaissance between now and the early 2020's, so storage tech performance limitations are unlikely to be the source of network problems related to blocksize increases.
Hey. XT did light the fire under people to get something decided. We need bigger blocks, and the Core developers only care about selling themselves to Blockstream.
So give XT the respect it deserves
Agreed, even if you do disprove of XT, it has still been a catalyst for change. So give XT the respect it deserves
Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos
Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon.
Listen, if all the block were between 500-750Kb i could see a real debate about increasing the size of blocks, but here we are talking that there are even blocks that aren't even of 100Kb, and we need to think even about the hard disk spaces because at the moment the max size of hard disk that people can buy is 8Tb, if we increase it without considering both the size of blocks and size of hard disks we are going to put limits to who can actually use bitcoins, you don't think so?
I have studied history, which has taught me that unexpected things can happen in the world. It is possible that we will see a spike in adoption quite possibly due to some global event. I think that this is a real possibility which I think we should be prepared for.
Anyway for future reference i'm posting the lowest prices of the hard disks avaible at the moment (Taken from Amazon.it so the prices may vary a lot)
1Tb hard disk = 43.37 Euro
2Tb Hard disk = 100 Euro (But at the moment is at 79.90 because random discount)
3Tb Hard disk = 125 Euro (Same as above but at 102.95)
4Tb Hard disk = 182 Euro (Discounted at 142.10)
6Tb Hard disk = 295 Euro (Discounted at 227.36)
8Tb Hard disk = 320 Euro (Discounted at 221.70)
As you may see... every time we ask more space the price increase even all of sudden, i think that is better wait then do it now
I have eight hard drives in my main computer, most people use SD drives for their operating system while using larger hard disks for other storage purposes. That you are using hard drive space as a limitation in regards to the blocksize debate seems misguided, bandwidth and latency would become bottlenecks long before hard drive space would become an issue for most people. It is possible to fit more then two hundred copies of the blockchain on an 8TB hard drive. Hard drive space certainly should not and is not a limiting factor in regards to the blocksize debate, especially when compared to bandwidth and latency.
bitcoin is not a democracy.
it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)
else status quo.
Bitcoin is a form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)
else status quo.
It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are also ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.
They even now don't realise that it is democrcacy. These communists still believe it's communism (idiotism).
Bitcoin is a protocol..
not a democracy or any other morbid political regime, you dumb fuck.
A protocol, constructed for notoriously vomiting ad-hominem-robots without brains, who are programmed to follow the authoritarians instead of voting between different choices? Dream on.
Hey. XT did light the fire under people to get something decided. We need bigger blocks, and the Core developers only care about selling themselves to Blockstream.
So give XT the respect it deserves
Agreed, even if you do disprove of XT, it has still been a catalyst for change. So give XT the respect it deserves
Quote from: Andreas Antonopoulos
Gavin is right. The time to increase the block size limit is before transaction processing shows congestion problems. Discuss now, do soon.
Listen, if all the block were between 500-750Kb i could see a real debate about increasing the size of blocks, but here we are talking that there are even blocks that aren't even of 100Kb, and we need to think even about the hard disk spaces because at the moment the max size of hard disk that people can buy is 8Tb, if we increase it without considering both the size of blocks and size of hard disks we are going to put limits to who can actually use bitcoins, you don't think so?
I have studied history, which has taught me that unexpected things can happen in the world. It is possible that we will see a spike in adoption quite possibly due to some global event. I think that this is a real possibility which I think we should be prepared for.
Yeah what you say but you just overlook one thing, i told that the max space on customer hard disk is 8Tb, but one can't use all the space for the blockchain don't you think? In the last years Operating Systems are taking more space with both the base and updates and there is even the fact that people usually use that space for other things or even worse, have different wallets on the same hard disk.
Anyway for future reference i'm posting the lowest prices of the hard disks avaible at the moment (Taken from Amazon.it so the prices may vary a lot)
1Tb hard disk = 43.37 Euro
2Tb Hard disk = 100 Euro (But at the moment is at 79.90 because random discount)
3Tb Hard disk = 125 Euro (Same as above but at 102.95)
4Tb Hard disk = 182 Euro (Discounted at 142.10)
6Tb Hard disk = 295 Euro (Discounted at 227.36)
8Tb Hard disk = 320 Euro (Discounted at 221.70)
As you may see... every time we ask more space the price increase even all of sudden, i think that is better wait then do it now
Jump to: