Topic: Blocksize needs to be increased now. - page 5. (Read 25071 times)
Using the simple idea of demand (in this case, of speed of transaction), the TX fees will go up. Especially with the upcoming halving, this will make up for some of the lowered profitability in the future. Maybe not all, but some. Miners will definitely want to keep it that way.
Do you understand how a B+Tree works?
(I guess not)
but does that stop you from using RDBMS engines? (of course not as everything you search upon uses them).
You don't need to understand the tech and no-one is blaming you for not - but don't try and ask for the tech to be explained to you unless you want to bother to learn how to understand it.
I would love to have a "time machine" but such a thing is not possible - so you might want a crypto-currency that cannot be implemented as well - just accept that it is not possible and try and be happy with what we have.
Well I did write several binary search routines in my day as a mainframe assembler programmer. My post wasn't a request for information, but to point out that block size doubling is a simple concept on the face of it, but the ramifications are fairly difficult to understand. In a situation where most people don't seem to understand the difference between Bitcoin and the blockchain, there is a danger that many people won't delve past the title.
2015 called. It wants you to give back its clever strategy to sell XT using fear/panic about Bitcoin's impending D000M.
If you "Bitcoin is going to choke S000N" types were serious, XT would change to a different/modified PoW at the same time it attempts (via contentious hard fork) to impose blocks >1MB on the (demonstrably unwilling) rest of the system.
Why not just do an extra round of SHA256? Existing ASICs could do that with firmware/driver tweak.
The reason you don't do that is you want to hijack Bitcoin and destroy its interesting property of being diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.
The sooner you fork off and stop trying to attach GavinCoin to Satoshi's coattails, the better.
If you "Bitcoin is going to choke S000N" types were serious, XT would change to a different/modified PoW at the same time it attempts (via contentious hard fork) to impose blocks >1MB on the (demonstrably unwilling) rest of the system.
Why not just do an extra round of SHA256? Existing ASICs could do that with firmware/driver tweak.
The reason you don't do that is you want to hijack Bitcoin and destroy its interesting property of being diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.
The sooner you fork off and stop trying to attach GavinCoin to Satoshi's coattails, the better.
Since its scaling linear i think we still have some time.. but still.. it should be raised pretty soon
As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project).
Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it.
Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.
Nah, there was nothing wrong with your post. It was the other fool's rant I was aiming at.
I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it.
Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.
Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.
Do you understand how a B+Tree works?
(I guess not)
but does that stop you from using RDBMS engines? (of course not as everything you search upon uses them).
You don't need to understand the tech and no-one is blaming you for not - but don't try and ask for the tech to be explained to you unless you want to bother to learn how to understand it.
I would love to have a "time machine" but such a thing is not possible - so you might want a crypto-currency that cannot be implemented as well - just accept that it is not possible and try and be happy with what we have.
As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project).
Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
I didn't think I attacked anybody. I merely stated that I had a lot of trouble understanding SegWit, and the future benefits to Bitcoin. I understyood, the bloc k doubling concept pretty instantly, but I still don't understand full thedamage such a shortterm solution can do tyo Bitcoin. Perhaps the advocates can explain it.
Re: your picture, I may be old, but I'm not old enough to have that granny as a kid. Also I suspect that her size might be attributed to an increase in the blocksize of her food.
Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
And look at that picture and your comment.
(some forum members are so stupid that they basically troll themselves)
I think I will call you @autotroll from now on.
Just quoting it to see it again. segwit hides such a multitude of sins...
Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
And look at that picture and your comment.
(some forum members are so stupid that they basically troll themselves)
I think I will call you @autotroll from now on.
As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project).
Personal attacks dont really add much to your credibility. In fact the entire point you just made comes across as a bit of a rant, with nothing to substantiate it.
ps Good luck getting your daughter into her segwit lycra.
As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
This is a nice analogy and yes the only reason we have people ranting and raving that we need to increase the block size now is politics (which have all originated from Gavin - the now "poisonous" developer trying his hardest to destroy the Bitcoin project).
I had a lot of trouble understanding the ramifications of SEgWit, but doubling blocksize is a simple concept to comprehend. Do people choose a block size increase because they don't understand SegWit, or is it me that has misunderstood it? As I see it, blocksize is like patching your kids clothes with duct tape because she has outgrown them, and they have split. SegWit is like buying her stretch lycra so that she can use and expand her agility for a number of years to come
Today I had a idear:
Why not to set down the difficulty?
So if we half it, or set the time between 2 blocks to 5 mins, we could handel more transactions.
So we dont need 2 MB blocks.
Not sure if there is any way to do it out of an hard fork.
Greetings
Why not to set down the difficulty?
So if we half it, or set the time between 2 blocks to 5 mins, we could handel more transactions.
So we dont need 2 MB blocks.
Not sure if there is any way to do it out of an hard fork.
Greetings
Exactly, there are different user group, each give different weight for being able to do transaction on-chain. Treat every user the same way is very low efficiency, unless everyone have unlimited bandwidth and CPU power
Yep the same way as you cant give the same salary to a janitor as to a nuclear physicist.
Everyone gets as much as they contribute, and so far the micropayments are not entirely beneficial because they use up too much space.
However if there is still demand for faucets, then the faucet wallets can easily integrate a method of transfering IOU BTC between eachother.
I think that one of the good things about Bitcoin is the possibility of transferring small amounts of money, which allows for microearnings. If that is going to be a problem due to transaction fees rising, I think that it will be a loss for Bitcoin.
Yes that unfortunately will consolidate, and I expect services like Faucetbox or Xapo to become a side-chain payment processor for that.
There are always drawbacks and we have to be reasonable, we cant just spam the network with 100 satoshi payments, so that aspect will be taken out slowly.
And let's be reasonable, for micropayments like that it's ok to leave it at a centralized service, it doesnt pose a lot of financial risk.
Bigger transactions will be free to be sent over the blockchain itself for fee. That is how it shall be
Exactly, there are different user group, each give different weight for being able to do transaction on-chain. Treat every user the same way is very low efficiency, unless everyone have unlimited bandwidth and CPU power
I think that one of the good things about Bitcoin is the possibility of transferring small amounts of money, which allows for microearnings. If that is going to be a problem due to transaction fees rising, I think that it will be a loss for Bitcoin.
Yes that unfortunately will consolidate, and I expect services like Faucetbox or Xapo to become a side-chain payment processor for that.
There are always drawbacks and we have to be reasonable, we cant just spam the network with 100 satoshi payments, so that aspect will be taken out slowly.
And let's be reasonable, for micropayments like that it's ok to leave it at a centralized service, it doesnt pose a lot of financial risk.
Bigger transactions will be free to be sent over the blockchain itself for fee. That is how it shall be
Nobody should neither impose hard fork nor soft fork without consensus IMHO, not even on core.
Although I believe that with a soft fork, everything keeps working for everyone and with a hard fork there are users who can't see some transactions, and think they haven't gotten paid when they have.
But with soft forks, the protocol in 10 or 20 years is going to be a horrible and confusing mess.
TL;DR soft forks are grotesque. Hard forks are violent.
Although I believe that with a soft fork, everything keeps working for everyone and with a hard fork there are users who can't see some transactions, and think they haven't gotten paid when they have.
But with soft forks, the protocol in 10 or 20 years is going to be a horrible and confusing mess.
TL;DR soft forks are grotesque. Hard forks are violent.
It's the opposite, the soft fork is much more violent than a hard fork, because it kills any mining nodes that do not comply with the new rule. A hard fork does not kill those nodes, just let those nodes become minority fork thus quickly lose support of users
In fact, the soft fork concept is deadly dangerous because it grant miners who have 51% mining hash power not only the ability to double spend or cancel transactions, but essentially change every rules of bitcoin and force it upon rest of the nodes, thus kill bitcoin
I will write a detailed analysis in a separate post
I honestly fail to see the problem. Why is it important that there be only -one- true coin?
Bitcoin blocks are getting full. so what? fees will drive up. It's survival of the fittest.
Scalability problem was solved with altcoins, 5 years ago when litecoin launched. Those who cannot afford the bitcoin fee, always have the option to move to an alternative, cheaper blockchain.
Look at the real world history. People used to trade gold as a currency hundreds of years ago. When It became to scarce and hard to find, it's value raised dramatically.
So poorer people started using cheaper metals i.e. silver, copper to do their daily business and gold became a high value currency that only those who could really afford it would use.
Nowadays we use paper cash because it's the cheapest method.
The same principle should apply to crypto currencies.. Bitcoin is the gold. litecoin is the silver, [insert random non scam coin] is the copper, etc.
Those who want to make small transactions, can use the cheaper coin, so (1) they can move money for less fees and (2) remove the unnecessary clutter from bitcoin blockchain.
And there is nothing to limit the scalability. once litecoin blocks get full, bring on the next coin, Dark coin maybe? when that's full, move on to the next
Increasing the blocksize limit DOES have a scalability issue. You force everyone to use a big blockchain. but by splitting the blockchain into multiple coins, the rich will use the bitcoin(gold), middle class would use the litecoin(silver) and the poor would use the feathercoin (shit). they don't spam each others' coins, and they use the blockchain they can afford.
You don't have to deal with hardforking issues either. it's a win win win for everybody.
Bitcoin blocks are getting full. so what? fees will drive up. It's survival of the fittest.
Scalability problem was solved with altcoins, 5 years ago when litecoin launched. Those who cannot afford the bitcoin fee, always have the option to move to an alternative, cheaper blockchain.
Look at the real world history. People used to trade gold as a currency hundreds of years ago. When It became to scarce and hard to find, it's value raised dramatically.
So poorer people started using cheaper metals i.e. silver, copper to do their daily business and gold became a high value currency that only those who could really afford it would use.
Nowadays we use paper cash because it's the cheapest method.
The same principle should apply to crypto currencies.. Bitcoin is the gold. litecoin is the silver, [insert random non scam coin] is the copper, etc.
Those who want to make small transactions, can use the cheaper coin, so (1) they can move money for less fees and (2) remove the unnecessary clutter from bitcoin blockchain.
And there is nothing to limit the scalability. once litecoin blocks get full, bring on the next coin, Dark coin maybe? when that's full, move on to the next
Increasing the blocksize limit DOES have a scalability issue. You force everyone to use a big blockchain. but by splitting the blockchain into multiple coins, the rich will use the bitcoin(gold), middle class would use the litecoin(silver) and the poor would use the feathercoin (shit). they don't spam each others' coins, and they use the blockchain they can afford.
You don't have to deal with hardforking issues either. it's a win win win for everybody.
If the fee is too high, it will hinder the adoption of bitcoin in daily usage. If there is no use, there will be no value in bitcoin.
Y'all need to bring beer over to my place right now, because the supply is getting low.
12, 24, 48, I don't care. Just bring it over ASAP because I'm thirsty.
12, 24, 48, I don't care. Just bring it over ASAP because I'm thirsty.
If that small increase in fees shall produce that so much relief in transfer volumes (which I do not know) then it will be a nice temporary solution. However I think that one of the good things about Bitcoin is the possibility of transferring small amounts of money, which allows for microearnings. If that is going to be a problem due to transaction fees rising, I think that it will be a loss for Bitcoin.
It's like this, you go to a doctor, and he says your arm has to be amputated.
You either wait a little bit more until he runs a few more tests to make sure that your arm really needs to be amputated, or he amputates it right now.
If you amputate it right now and he is wrong, then you are fucked. If you wait more and it turns out that your arm doesnt need to be amputated, then you will have avoided this tragedy.
The same goes with bitcoin, wait more for better research , or do a foolish thing now like increasing block size and later regret it.
Jump to: