Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 139. (Read 378996 times)

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:47:35 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

The problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin.

Get back to your sandbox kiddo.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in business range dedicated connections or in datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

"Too bad. No full node for you!"

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:41:40 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

FTFY

What's the problem again?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 10:39:30 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:30:38 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on October 09, 2015, 10:09:30 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 04:51:28 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 10:42:19 AM

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

Quote

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

Okay you seriously need me to point out why you are so obviously wrong here?

Bitcoin's blockchain = the longest valid chain.

Miners could very well start broadcasting bigger blocks but unless every single node in the network move forward with that decision the only thing they will succeed at is forking themselves out of the network and mining their own worthless chain.

My previous post was about demonstrating that miners don't hold the power you pretend they do because if they did then Bitcoin would be broken. In reality they only enforce the rules decided on by the peers on the network. They certainly can't and will never get to decide to change the protocol on the basis of what's best for them.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:30:38 AM

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean..... Cheesy

Do you even economics?

I think your confusion is trying to apply economics to something that is grade school math,

100 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 10BTC reward

200 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 20BTC reward

heres the complicated bit, pay attention

20 > 10

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knight22 on October 09, 2015, 10:40:02 AM

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 10:42:19 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks.

You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in business range dedicated connections or in datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:30:38 AM

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean..... Cheesy

Do you even economics?

Right. Fees will probably never rise as people will be driven away from bitcoin as they realize it doesn't scale. Not much better output though.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:30:38 AM

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

I mean..... Cheesy

Do you even economics?

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 10:39:30 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:30:38 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on October 09, 2015, 10:09:30 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 04:51:28 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:34:11 AM

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

Quote

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 10:17:45 AM

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 04:51:28 AM

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start ~~accepting bigger blocks anyway~~ mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block ~~size limit~~ subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks ~~with loads of transaction fees~~. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

When you can't prove someone wrong, then pretend they said something silly and call them retarded. Solid.

If you can't tell the difference between fundamental rules and temporary DDoS measures then you are on thin ice calling other people stupid.

It's not about proving you wrong, it's trying to shine the light on how stupid your understanding of Bitcoin is.

If you can't tell the difference between a few retarded miners forking to their own chain and a hard fork then I absolutely should insist on calling you stupid.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: muyuu on October 09, 2015, 10:33:48 AM

Of course they can hard fork upwards, and even soft fork downwards much more easily. Currently transactions are strongly under cost, so it's much more likely that they would soft fork down than they hard fork up.

http://alexgorale.com/bitcoin-block-size-risk

Why would they soft fork downwards? Fee pressure?

I'm not the first to think it but I thought the 'stress tests' were fee pressure too.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 10:30:38 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: hdbuck on October 09, 2015, 10:09:30 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 04:51:28 AM

Quote from: mallard on October 09, 2015, 10:26:52 AM

Dorian knows what's up:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjg

Quote

I thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition.

Note the emphasis against centralisation.

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

conjectures & feelings.

lel

Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"!

tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks?

Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.

AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue.

What is to stop them hard forking?

You can't be serious....

Do you know what a hard fork is?

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 10:17:45 AM

I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.

If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage.

Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 04:51:28 AM

If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start ~~accepting bigger blocks anyway~~ mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.

Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block ~~size limit~~ subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.

Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks ~~with loads of transaction fees~~. They will make it happen.

That's a rather interesting comment...

Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works?

When you can't prove someone wrong, then pretend they said something silly and call them retarded. Solid.

If you can't tell the difference between fundamental rules and temporary DDoS measures then you are on thin ice calling other people stupid.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Of course they can hard fork upwards, and even soft fork downwards much more easily. Currently transactions are strongly under cost, so it's much more likely that they would soft fork down than they hard fork up.

http://alexgorale.com/bitcoin-block-size-risk

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: hdbuck on October 09, 2015, 10:09:30 AM

Quote from: brg444 on October 09, 2015, 09:49:26 AM

Quote from: sgbett on October 09, 2015, 04:51:28 AM