Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 117.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:48:38 PM

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

Yes we are.

https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=365

Individual cases such as the one of your friend don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. The concern is with the trend. Now the trend clearly shows that the total node count, whatever the reason is, has progressively declined from its historic heights despite a clear increase in Bitcoin adoption.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Moreover this is really beside the point as node count in itself is pretty much useless as a statistic.

The real numbers we should be concerned about is the cost of the option to run a full node.

This cost unequivocally increases as Bitcoin grows.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:35:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:20:55 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:11:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:01:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

You have not demonstrated this to be false, furthermore this would be impossible to demonstrate false with a high degree of certainty. A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home. This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Your insults and attacks only reveal the weakness of your position.

Please explain why we have less nodes than we've ever had. Do you consider this an anomaly? Should we expect the trend to reverse in the future?

I have already explained why we have less nodes today then we did in the past. I will repeat for the third time in this discussion that SPV wallets and web wallets and an influx of "normal" Bitcoin users who are not ideologically motivated to run a full node. This and the increased difficulty is part of the reason for this decline.

We are not at a all time low in terms of node count actually, node count has increased after the launch of XT, and since then it has actually stabilized. I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

MOAR sweet cream of comedy from the lolcows at the rump forum:

Gavin Andresen's post got censored "moderated" @ bitcoin-dev mailing list.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/censorship-at-bitcoin-dev.154/

Quote

I don't even know where to start... what a sadness.

TIL the definition of "censorship" is "moderation with which I disagree." Roll Eyes

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:20:55 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:11:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:01:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

You have not demonstrated this to be false, furthermore this would be impossible to demonstrate false with a high degree of certainty. A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home. This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Your insults and attacks only reveal the weakness of your position.

Please explain why we have less nodes than we've ever had. Do you consider this an anomaly? Should we expect the trend to reverse in the future?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:11:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:01:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

You have not demonstrated this to be false, furthermore this would be impossible to demonstrate false with a high degree of certainty. A simple counter example would be me introducing my friend to Bitcoin, he bought some Bitcoin and now he is running a full node from his home. This is a clear example of adoption directly leading to increasing the node count, this does not imply that node count is therefore overall increased since there are other factors and variables at work. However you can not say that adoption does not lead to increasing the node count since it only takes one example to prove your claim wrong as I have just done so.

Your insults and attacks only reveal the weakness of your position.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:08:17 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:01:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

You claim that more adoption is going to lead to an increase in node count.

I've demonstrated this to be patently false and that it could get worse farther down the road.

Seriously get lost, you are pathetic.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 12:03:38 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:01:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

It is also much harder to run a full node today then it was three years ago, furthermore most Bitcoin users today use SPV and web wallets. It is mainly the hardcore Bitcoiners and enthusiasts, as well as businesses that run full nodes today. I am not ignoring reality, I acknowledge both sides of this dynamic, you do not, therefore you are the one ignoring reality.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 12:01:49 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

Are you retarded?

There are probably 1000x more Bitcoin users today than 3 years ago yet the node count is significantly lower.

Who's ignoring reality now? It seems to me you're the one living in the twilight zone.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:58:18 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

Yes the more people that use Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node, at the same time the more people that use Bitcoin the more people there will be to run full nodes. Only one of us is ignoring part of this duel reality and it is not me.

This is why I keep referring to it as a balancing act, to ignore either side of this dynamic is completely ignoring reality.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:16:07 AM

I am shocked that Gavin Andresen is even being censored on the developer mailing list
it certainly does not seem justified
I can not in good conscience support a group of people that are doing so much harm to Bitcoin
This is truly reprehensible what is happening within Core, just look at the moderation rules
I would not want the future of Bitcoin to be decided under such censorship

You use the terms "censorship" and "moderation" interchangeably, but they are not equivalent.

Cite: https://xkcd.com/1357/

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: hdbuck on October 28, 2015, 11:49:24 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

lel 4 pages thread! Cheesy

such consensus..

sry, BIP 101 is dead, dead and deader.

now let us have fun in our 100+ pages thread. Grin

Because your thread has more pages it means you are right? I am not convinced, you will have to come up with a better argument then that.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:56:34 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

There is also simple logic that indicates the more people adopt Bitcoin the harder it gets to run a full node.

Quote

I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple reality.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Lie in question: Increased adoption = increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

Correlation is not the same causation. Furthermore there is a simple logic behind what I am saying. When more people discover Bitcoin there will be more people that have reasons for running full nodes. I think it would be the equivalent of ignoring reality if you did not acknowledge this simple truth.

I have already previously explained that there where other factors responsible for this decrease, including the introduction of SPV and web wallets.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

Increased adoption != increased node count.

Argument: Node count in 2012 vs Node count in 2015.

Need I say more?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:41:07 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

lel 4 pages thread! Cheesy

such consensus..

sry, BIP 101 is dead, dead and deader.

now let us have fun in our 100+ pages thread. Grin

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on October 28, 2015, 11:29:57 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

If they where lies you would have been able to disprove them or at least effectively argue against my claims. So far you have failed to so, which is probably why you are now just resorting to calling me a liar.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:16:07 AM

Quote from: muyuu on October 28, 2015, 06:06:36 AM

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

I am shocked that Gavin Andresen is even being censored on the developer mailing list now. If you look at the post that has been censored it certainly does not seem justified. In my mind this is truly the end for Core, I can not in good conscience support a group of people that are doing so much harm to Bitcoin. I doubt Core would ever implement BIP100 anyway, it will most likely end up being an alternative implementation that will stay true to the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto instead. This is truly reprehensible what is happening within Core, just look at the moderation rules. I would not want the future of Bitcoin to be decided under such censorship.

We've been waiting for you to fork off!

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on October 28, 2015, 11:07:41 AM

If Bitcoin does not scale to accommodate a greater amount of transactions directly then this would impact node count as well when compared to allowing increased transactional capacity, since increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count, therefore increasing the blocksize needs to ideally be a balancing act between actual adoption and transaction volume.

Why do you keep repeating these lies? Angry

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: muyuu on October 28, 2015, 06:06:36 AM

Hearndresen continue ostracising themselves from development. Good stuff for Bitcoin.

https://archive.is/bSdMT

XT increasingly dead, Bitcoin hitting $300.

Happy days.

I am shocked that Gavin Andresen is even being censored on the developer mailing list now. If you look at the post that has been censored it certainly does not seem justified. In my mind this is truly the end for Core, I can not in good conscience support a group of people that are doing so much harm to Bitcoin. I doubt Core would ever implement BIP100 anyway, it will most likely end up being an alternative implementation that will stay true to the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto instead. This is truly reprehensible what is happening within Core, just look at the moderation rules. I would not want the future of Bitcoin to be decided under such censorship.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 117. (Read 378996 times)