Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 125. (Read 379003 times)

 

Good one.

^

join the Blockchain Alliance !


(and fork the sh@t out of it)

We do not need to be overly concerned about corporations and banks getting involved. They will still have to play according to the same rules of the Bitcoin protocol, if anything we should be happy that they are getting more involved since that might make these banks and corporations more transparent and responsible, while also strengthening the network. As long as the fundamental rules are not changed then we have nothing to fear from such institutions. I also think it is flawed to create such a false narrative implying that increasing the block size is somehow connected to such institutions which most of us here despise and that this sacrifices the principles we uphold. It would be more useful discussing the pros and cons of such a change in the light of the principles of decentralization and financial freedom as opposed to creating such an overly simplistic and false narrative. After all not everything Goldman Sachs does is wrong, it is flawed to say that something is wrong just because they support it, this overly simplistic and flawed logic. In same sense for example you could say that the Nazis supported and liked sandwiches, which does not then mean that supporting and liking sandwiches is wrong.

I was pretty late to the party (late 2013) but it seems to me back then the "community" was not so bent on sucking up to corporations and bankers. Fast forward to nearly two years and millions of dollars of VC money later the redditards seemingly can't imagine a world without these parasites, their exchanges, their payment processors and web wallets.

Quite disturbing.

its like we're stuck in this corporatist paradigm:



friggin matrix, if you ask me.

The problem is that these people are small men who won't dare do what they said they would: fork forcibly in mining minority if necessary, with checkpoints. So we have to endure them still.

Big blocks, small men.

I do realize that my calculation was overly simplistic, which is in part why I was so conservative. I just think it would be useful to know what these numbers are, even if it is just a rough estimate. Since then we can say with more certainty that X percentage of people will be able to run full nodes even with an increase, which would hopefully dispel some of the irrational fear that no domestic full nodes will be able to operate at eight megabytes for example, which obviously is not true. In regards to this calculation it should indeed be for a "verifying node" so to speak.

I was thinking of starting a new thread that could attempt to answer this question, or at the very least construct the best rough estimate that we can. Hopefully some people that know much more then I do about mathematics and computer networking will be able help us to get a better grasp of these numbers. Unless such a thread already exists?

I would absolutely support such extensive testing, hopefully these tests will be performed before we need to increase the blocksize in order to avoid transactions becoming unreliable and prohibitively expensive.

"Bitcoin needs us!"

 

wonder if bitcoin will survive them.

If it wasn't clear by now that Gavin is an industry plant...


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/prominent-bitcoin-industry-players-form-blockchain-alliance-to-combat-criminal-activity-1445522501

From here, data is from 2014:
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/download/Broadband%20Availability%20in%20Rural%20vs%20Urban%20Areas.pdf

Week after week more desktop full node users are left behind than new ones can join. As long as this is the case the blocks are too big, not too small. No ifs or buts.

-----

Because of protocol overhead, there will be additional data transmitted and received beyond the block contents.  There will also be multiple copies of some data transmitted because of multiple connections to/from the node.  There will also be dead time in which the bandwidth can not be used because a computer is "computing" and the link is idle.  The simple calculations place a lower bound on the bandwidth needed to receive blocks, which is the minimum needed to run a verifying node.  If the node is to contribute to the network then it will need additional bandwidth, e.g. to upload data.  (If there isn't sufficient upload bandwidth to support the block size, then the node will necessarily be leaching.)

For 10 months I ran a full node off a residential DSL service, including through the spam/loadtests. My DSLservice had approximately 15 Mbps download capability and 1 Mbps upload capability.  I limited the number of connections to 30, which seemed to allow slightly more upload bandwidth consumed in a month vs. download bandwidth, i.e. the node was not leeching. So that my other uses of my DSL service didn't choke, I enabled QoS on my router to limit  upload bandwidth from the node to 500kbps when there was conflict with other upstream traffic. Based on what I saw, it looks like this node had sufficient network bandwidth to have been able to keep up with 20 MB blocks, at least on average, but it would be close, depending on overhead factors. I would have continued to run this full node to support the network, but after upgrading to bitcoinXT in August the node was DDoSed.  I decided to no longer run a full node because of this experience.  I did not want to risk the possibility that my ISP would be taken  down again by criminals.

In my opinion the only way to settle the question of how much bandwidth is required will be to conduct actual experiments.  This will probably show up bottlenecks that simplistic calculations tend to ignore.  In addition, it will be necessary to decide what the purpose of the node is, because this will affect the load on the node and the impact of any queuing delays.  Mining on my node would be a poor idea even with 1 MB blocks due to a high orphan rate.  It would be, and was, more productive to mine with a solo mining pool.)  The proper way to do these experiments is to construct a test network of dedicated nodes, DSL simulators, etc... and come up with test workloads, measurement tools, etc...  This is a big task, not suitable for hobbyists.  With all the VC money out there, however, this is certainly something that could be done.

I meant as in bitcoin irrelevant since they do not understand a thing about encryption, code etc. They are just "ideologers".



The only sorta libertarian I do consider is Proudhon. (dont know the ones you quoted tho)

But the concept of being libertarian is flawed imho and encompasses too much noise to be credible overall.

I don't know, people like Ian Freeman and Jim Harper are more influential than Roger Ver.


I like some of the libertarians. Jeffrey Tucker, Doug Casey, Walter Block etc. Those guys are credible libertarians to me.

I've noticed Ver's double discourse. Pretty lame, if you ask me.
But then again, you can't expect much from an banned convict that use to sell bombs.

The rest of these people are irrelevant.
Typical attention whatnot whores.
There is no such thing as a credible libertarian.


May them all fork to oblivion.

My original thread ended up moderated into the Altcoins sub, but I'm taking the content to the main forum anyway....

"Libertarian" bitcoiners are beginning to out themselves as XT/101 shills:

• Roger Ver on Jeff Berwick's Anarchast
• Ian Freeman on Free Talk Live (regular occurence)
• Reason.com's Andrea Castillo claims XT represents the libertarian viewpoint
• Jim Harper of Cato.org explains why XT is not an existential threat to Bitcoin

Can these people really claim to want money that's "independent from government influence", as Jeff Berwick puts it, when the change to Bitcoin is being promoted by investment from (or association with former stellar employees) of Goldman Sachs/Wal-Mart/Accel/Santander/PayPal etc?

Can they really claim to be credible libertarians, seeking to promote a suppressed idea, when they themselves only promote one side of the debate?

It's not too late to save face and actually give a platform to these "smart guys" whose opposing opinion they claim to have respect for.

true.

in France, the residentials are "limited" to 1mb upload (max 4km from the base).

only fiber residential can have a 3-5 mb upload in a radius of 1km from the base of the city (more than 200 000 persons).

so ... 0.07% of the internet contract in reality.

Where did you pull this data from? Generally interested in the subject. Also, what year is this data from? It's not surprising, FWIW. A lot of people seem to overestimate regional bandwidth capabilities on the odd assumption that we all live in a city.