Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 34.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 04:52:19 PM

I do not consider the Lighting Network as an alternative to increasing the blocksize, this is also comes down to ideology however. Though I do not consider moving the majority of transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain as a solution to scaling the Bitcoin blockchain itself. A solution to creating a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System already exists, its called Bitcoin. We just need to allow it to operate at scale like it was always intended to be.

Hate to break it to ya, but Bitcoin doesn't scale.

Quote from: BitUsher on December 15, 2015, 04:55:59 PM

The Lightning Network won't be very useful with just segwit alone in the longterm .

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

Segwit + LN + Relay Network Improvements + 2+4+8MB limit increase + more off the chain solutions and than other solutions layers ontop for scalability.

I didn't get the 2+4+8MB part.
Are you talking about a hard fork?

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: forevernoob on December 15, 2015, 04:39:55 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on December 15, 2015, 04:33:31 PM

I don't know of any developer who thinks its enough, that is why they are discussing a long list of options to address scalability. segwit essentially will increase capacity by 75% (like a 1.75 MB block limit) and only more if heavy multig becomes more popular.

I was thinking more like SW + Lightning Network?

The Lightning Network won't be very useful with just segwit alone in the longterm .

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

Segwit + LN + Relay Network Improvements + 2+4+8MB limit increase + more off the chain solutions and than other solutions layers ontop for scalability.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 04:52:19 PM

A solution to creating a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System already exists, its called Bitcoin. We just need to allow it to operate at scale like it was always intended to be.

Satoshi is human, and despite being a genius , made many flaws that need to be corrected. It isn't surprising that most developers are against Bip101 and XT as being too aggressive. They are familiar with the limitations of technology and how it can scale and the inherent tradeoffs.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: forevernoob on December 15, 2015, 04:39:55 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on December 15, 2015, 04:33:31 PM

I don't know of any developer who thinks its enough, that is why they are discussing a long list of options to address scalability. segwit essentially will increase capacity by 75% (like a 1.75 MB block limit) and only more if heavy multig becomes more popular.

I was thinking more like SW + Lightning Network?

I do not consider the Lighting Network as an alternative to increasing the blocksize, this is also comes down to ideology however. Though I do not consider moving the majority of transactions off the Bitcoin blockchain as a solution to scaling the Bitcoin blockchain itself. A solution to creating a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System already exists, its called Bitcoin. We just need to allow it to operate at scale like it was always intended to be.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: BitUsher on December 15, 2015, 04:33:31 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on December 15, 2015, 04:30:00 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 04:22:01 PM

Implementing LN without an increase in the blocksize would lead to massive centralization because of the limited amount of off chain solutions that would be able to operate within such a limit. Even your precious Core developers have admitted that an increase in the blocksize is still necessary even with LN for global adoption.

Are you really trying to say that increasing the blocksize does not increase capacity and scaling? Have you ever heard of the term doublespeak?

So what about SW? Is that increase not enough?

I don't know of any developer who thinks its enough, that is why they are discussing a long list of options to address scalability. segwit essentially will increase capacity by 75% (like a 1.75 MB block limit) and only more if heavy multig becomes more popular.

It also still needs to implemented across the board through the entire ecosystem, from wallets, block explorers, and many other services they will all need to modify their own custom software in order to adopt this change, this will take time, furthermore as was already said the actual increase in the throughput is rather minimal.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: BitUsher on December 15, 2015, 04:33:31 PM

I don't know of any developer who thinks its enough, that is why they are discussing a long list of options to address scalability. segwit essentially will increase capacity by 75% (like a 1.75 MB block limit) and only more if heavy multig becomes more popular.

I was thinking more like SW + Lightning Network?

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: forevernoob on December 15, 2015, 04:30:00 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 04:22:01 PM

Implementing LN without an increase in the blocksize would lead to massive centralization because of the limited amount of off chain solutions that would be able to operate within such a limit. Even your precious Core developers have admitted that an increase in the blocksize is still necessary even with LN for global adoption.

Are you really trying to say that increasing the blocksize does not increase capacity and scaling? Have you ever heard of the term doublespeak?

So what about SW? Is that increase not enough?

I don't know of any developer who thinks its enough, that is why they are discussing a long list of options to address scalability. segwit essentially will increase capacity by 75% (like a 1.75 MB block limit) and only more if heavy multig becomes more popular.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 04:22:01 PM

Implementing LN without an increase in the blocksize would lead to massive centralization because of the limited amount of off chain solutions that would be able to operate within such a limit. Even your precious Core developers have admitted that an increase in the blocksize is still necessary even with LN for global adoption.

Are you really trying to say that increasing the blocksize does not increase capacity and scaling? Have you ever heard of the term doublespeak?

So what about SW? Is that increase not enough?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Implementing LN without an increase in the blocksize would lead to massive centralization because of the limited amount of off chain solutions that would be able to operate within such a limit. Even your precious Core developers have admitted that an increase in the blocksize is still necessary even with LN for global adoption.

Are you really trying to say that increasing the blocksize does not increase capacity and scaling? Have you ever heard of the term doublespeak?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:50:14 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:34:43 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:23:54 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:18:17 PM

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer Cheesy

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

No we can't.

Do you really think a meager 8x increase can have us compete with VISA or Paypal!?

As long as blocks do not fill up we can, this depends on the rate of adoption.

No it doesn't. It's about capacity.

Realistically only Lightning can get us there. Raising the blocksize is not a scaling solution, as we've repeatedly tried to tell you over the last 200 pages or so.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:34:43 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:23:54 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:18:17 PM

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer Cheesy

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

No we can't.

Do you really think a meager 8x increase can have us compete with VISA or Paypal!?

As long as blocks do not become consistently full we can, this of course does depend on the rate of adoption. Combined with off chain transactions I think this is perfectly viable.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:29:43 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:23:54 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:18:17 PM

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer Cheesy

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

No we can't.

Do you really think a meager 8x increase can have us compete with VISA or Paypal!?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

I pity the family members who'll be hosting you people during upcoming Christmas family reunions. What a bunch of boring stuck-up children Cry

You all need to realize this is bitcointalk not the fucking senate. Maybe check the thread title again?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:23:54 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:18:17 PM

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer Cheesy

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

If we increase the blocksize then we can compete with payment processors now, you can not expect the market to just wait for this without negative consequences especially as Bitcoin fails to handle the transactional demand. I also think that increasing the blocksize would lead to more security and decentralization over the long run. Since having a high volume of low fee transactions would be better compared to a low volume of transactions with high fees.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:24:56 PM

They also unanimously condemn BIP101's pipedream projections. Wink

As do I.

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:20:32 PM

They're major banking parasites freeloaders indeed.

Coinbase. Banking puppets
Xapo. Wences IMO is one of the few legit bloke in the industry. Most likely was lied to by Gavin and Mike and urged to show "unity" with the "industry"
BitGo. Web Wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Circle. Goldman Sachs puppets
Blockchain.info Broken Web wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
ItBit. Banking puppets

Miners are rallying behind Core.

I guess that sums it up.

So which side are you on? The zionist banking incumbents or the cypherpunks?

I know where my allegiance lies.

Wow, at first I assumed better of you and just thought you were a little excitable and emotional. Too much ad hominem without critical reasoning in one post for me; time to walk away from the conversation.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:22:28 PM

The majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize actually.

... and developers. Basically, almost all of the bitcoin ecosystem supports increasing the blocksize... just not with 101 or XT. Not even the creator anymore apparently.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:22:28 PM

That is a lot of ad hominem for just one post, followed by a false dichotomy.

The majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize actually.

They also unanimously condemn BIP101's pipedream projections. Wink

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:18:17 PM

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

I agree but tell that to your regular Joe consumer Cheesy

Under the proposed Lightning schedule Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors by sometimes next year while maintaining the highest standards of security and decentralization.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

That is a lot of ad hominem for just one post, followed by a false dichotomy.

"zionist banking incumbents"? I suppose I can add antisemitism to the list as well...

The majority of miners do support an increase in the blocksize actually.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Holliday on December 15, 2015, 02:58:48 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Everyone wants the blocksize to increase. The mini-blockers are a loud, vocal minority that are already on the wrong side of history.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

Talks about loud, vocal minority.

Links to forum with almost 300 members!

Did you read the list in the post that I linked to? Those people are not part of that forum... they are the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem.

They're major banking parasites freeloaders indeed.

Coinbase. Banking puppets
Xapo. Wences IMO is one of the few legit bloke in the industry. Most likely was lied to by Gavin and Mike and urged to show "unity" with the "industry"
BitGo. Web Wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
Circle. Goldman Sachs puppets
Blockchain.info Broken Web wallet, has nothing to do with Bitcoin.
ItBit. Banking puppets

Miners are rallying behind Core.

I guess that sums it up.

So which side are you on? The zionist banking incumbents or the cypherpunks?

I know where my allegiance lies.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Holliday on December 15, 2015, 02:58:48 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Everyone wants the blocksize to increase. The mini-blockers are a loud, vocal minority that are already on the wrong side of history.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

Talks about loud, vocal minority.

Links to forum with almost 300 members!

Did you read the list in the post that I linked to? Those people are not part of that forum... they are the major players in the bitcoin ecosystem.

I did. It looks mostly like a list of companies which use the Bitcoin ecosystem to earn fiat.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:10:14 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on December 15, 2015, 03:04:10 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 03:01:25 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on December 15, 2015, 02:55:24 PM

Quote from: brg444 on December 15, 2015, 02:49:49 PM

Your amazon example is a marginal situation. Sure you might enjoy the benefits of jumping through these hoops but please don't pretend it is in anyway convenient for anyone other than determined Bitcoiners.

There is a very large group of people who waste a bit of time comparison shopping and cutting out coupons as well. The amount of effort to use foldapp and purse isn't any more.

I guess we lost track of the argument here... To be clear: I proposed that Bitcoin is currently incapable of competing with traditional payment systems as far as mainstream adoption is concerned.

Your argument that a certain marginal section of consumers has adopted dubious behaviours does not support the assertion that others will do the same..

If we increase the blocksize then Bitcoin will be capable of competing with traditional payment systems, It is very simply really.

Yes, maybe, eventually, in 10 years maybe.

By then most people will be transacting using Lightning though.

Raising the block size does not solve consumers issues relating to non-reversible transactions, security and general consumer protection.

More transaction throughput doesn't provide any more incentive for merchants to accept & HOLD bitcoins.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

Raising the block size is NOT a panacea.

Transactions being non reversible is a feature not a bug. Under the schedule outlined in BIP101 Bitcoin will be able to compete with payment processors now and in ten years from now as transaction volume increases. I do not have anything against off chain solutions as long as people are not "forced" to use them in order to cheaply transact in Bitcoin because of an arbitrarily and unnecessarily low blocksize limit.

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 34. (Read 378991 times)