#Blocksize Survey - page 12. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: DooMAD on August 18, 2015, 02:47:32 PM

My first choice is BIP101, but if certain corners of the community are absolutely hellbent on torpedoing it through increasingly fraudulent means (the 'notXT' spoof client, impersonating satoshi, reddit and forum censorship, calling it an altcoin, general FUD or misinformation and all the other underhand and dishonest shit that's currently going on), I would settle on this proposal as a compromise or fallback.

As far as I know, the BIP 101 is not sustainable (doubling every two years). This is just a conclusion based upon information that I've found through the months (not research). I'm pretty sure that developing lands and especially China can't handle the doubling. The problem isn't really the storage, but rather network bandwidth (i.e. increased orphan rates).
Wouldn't BIP 100 be better, having a soft limit between 1MB to a maximum of 32 MB?

Quote from: DooMAD on August 18, 2015, 02:47:32 PM

However, we'll see if those currently engaged in said fraudulent activity are prepared to make any compromises themselves.

Fraudulent activity?

Quantus

legendary

Activity: 883

Merit: 1005

The facts are that the majority of Bitcoin transactions are worth less then 20 cents. I consider this a micro transaction.
Now going even further I would argue 20% of transactions are worth less then 1 cent. I would consider these transactions spam.

I believe wholeheartedly that the network as it exists today was never envisioned by its creators and will collapse if propagation time between miners, full nodes and users continue to grow.
I believe wholeheartedly maintenance costs of the network will rise substantially with the rise of block size leading to consolidation and control of the network too private companies.
I agree 1MB blocks do in fact limit the number of transaction the Bitcoin network can handle but this is only an issue for those sending transactions below 1 cent with no fee.

May the Ddos be with you.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

@iCEBREAKER
I'll give you a secret.
With the next fork it will be 1 block for minute, with the reward of 2.5 BTC (and after the halving, 1.25 BTC every minute and so on)

Grin

Hmm, even the max block size will be probably divided by 10, or even better, it will be made unlimited Shocked

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Adrian-x on August 19, 2015, 09:49:03 PM

BIP101 is an improvement that is necessary for bitcoin to prosper, XT is the only viable option to implement this upgrade at this time, you've spread loads of FUD calling it an altcoin Cool

.

BIP101 is still in the very early 'concept' phase. You are remiss to make flat, broad assertions based on positive assumptions about how it will do in the later prototype/testnet/deployment stages.

XT, as defined on Trolltalk and /r/bitcoin, is most certainly an altcoin:

Quote from: theymos on August 09, 2015, 10:18:04 PM

Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin.

The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.

If can't accept that, please fuck off to /v/bitcoinxt.

Swordsoffreedom

legendary

Activity: 2884

Merit: 1115

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 05:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

I think he did not calculate that one accurately
We are not just concerned about the size but the speed of the internet connection and geographical regions we may see larger adoption but in areas where the requirements for a speedy connection are met.

On the other hand incentivization to run Bitcoin nodes is non-existent per se besides feeling more secure from online exchange risk and nodes do not it face the issues of miner centralization near cheap electricity so I guess there may be a point for an increased userbase resulting in more nodes but in a capacity that can't really be measured till we start pushing that limit.

(mumble did a speed test on wifi down = 16mbp up = 4.87 mbps)
Plan offers 20-50mbp down 10 up ISP's over advertise compared to actual for local bandwidth purposes but sizing aside not the main issue.

Quote from: flix on August 18, 2015, 09:58:37 AM

MeniRosenfeld
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/cu6udfe

The mere act of choosing commits, in my opinion, the logical fallacy of privileging the hypothesis. There are millions of possible approaches, and "someone" out there restricted them to just 2. Most of the decision process (culling from millions to 2) was made for me and I'm left rubber-stamping one of the choices that remain. (See also http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/stop_voting_for_nincompoops/).
But hey, even a noisy bit contains some information, and the question was asked, so...

A voice of reason in the storm sides with Meni on this.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on August 19, 2015, 02:20:10 PM

Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 05:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Wow, Bitcoin Jesus certainly has picked his cross to die on.

It's a shame for someone with such a great reputation to instantly blow it by becoming known as Roger "100MB blocks are easy" Ver.

your the odd ball, BIP101 is an improvement that is necessary for bitcoin to prosper, XT is the only viable option to implement this upgrade at this time, you've spread loads of FUD calling it an altcoin Cool

.

on one is going to die on a cross, some of us want liberty and freedom more than you. Ver, just happens to be a leading figure in the bitcoin space. but anyway looking at the sheep and the Bitcoin wealthy I think your doing a good job for the next growth spurt.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 05:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Wow, Bitcoin Jesus certainly has picked his cross to die on.

It's a shame for someone with such a great reputation to instantly blow it by becoming known as Roger "100MB blocks are easy" Ver.

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 18, 2015, 02:29:23 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on August 18, 2015, 11:25:59 AM

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 18, 2015, 10:37:14 AM

Quote from: GreenStox on August 18, 2015, 10:35:05 AM

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you... Roll Eyes

Not if they intentionally divide and conquer the userbase and risk 4.7 billion $ of user funds based on their stupid ego.

A true intellectual would give in his ego and achieve a compromize. These devs are just clowns that got lucky to work on this project.

What if it's their primary plan? That's possible.

I suspect that bitcoin has been infiltrated by shadow forces from behind and many devs are controlled by marionettes from behind, so the sabotage can be intentional, to divide & conquer.

It's not a conspiracy, since many devs have been in the CFR meetings where the elite are meeting too.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: desired_username on August 19, 2015, 08:05:34 AM

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 19, 2015, 08:03:42 AM

Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 05:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old...

You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable.
In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two.

On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code...

It's not realistic to desire that an average person should run a full node.

Even Satoshi foresaw that.

Tell Roger Ver about that, it's his assumption, not mine.

And there's no point in appealing to Satoshi, he's not infallible.

desired_username

hero member

Activity: 886

Merit: 1013

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 19, 2015, 08:03:42 AM

Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 05:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old...

You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable.
In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two.

On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code...

It's not realistic to desire that an average person should run a full node.

Even Satoshi foresaw that.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: flix on August 19, 2015, 05:15:24 AM

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Jesus, these are arguments of 5yr old...

You know, I have a fairly powerful PC, but even it struggled running Core during the last spam attack. It didn't crash, but the load was noticeable.
In order for the reference client to be runnable by an average Joe, A LOT of engineering work must be done on the code side. That's exactly what core devs have been doing during the last year or two (or ever since the Bitcoin inception).

On a side note: if more users mean more nodes, why then the node count has been actually falling in the last two years? Despite an 1Mb limit and a lot of improvements in code...

flix

legendary

Activity: 1227

Merit: 1000

Roger Ver:
Bigger Blocks Mean More Decentralization for Bitcoin
https://www.bitcoin.com/news/bigger-blocks-means-decentralization-bitcoin/

Quote

*Currently a very modest internet connection, available in most of the world, can easily support blocks more than one hundred times what is in use today.

*A $100 USD hard drive would take the better part of a century worth of full blocks to fill up at the current block size limit.

Possum577

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Loose lips sink sigs!

Consensus, consensus, consensus...if we start to lose consensus we end up like fiat - it IS that simple.

Also, the more opportunities you have share your voice, the better, I invite (and strongly encourage you) to participate in this poll to echo you opinion in as many places as possible on this forum...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-simple-poll-the-future-of-bitcoin-block-size-1153896

Thank you.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

My first choice is BIP101, but if certain corners of the community are absolutely hellbent on torpedoing it through increasingly fraudulent means (the 'notXT' spoof client, impersonating satoshi, reddit and forum censorship, calling it an altcoin, general FUD or misinformation and all the other underhand and dishonest shit that's currently going on), I would settle on this proposal as a compromise or fallback.

However, we'll see if those currently engaged in said fraudulent activity are prepared to make any compromises themselves.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: GreenStox on August 18, 2015, 11:25:59 AM

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 18, 2015, 10:37:14 AM

Quote from: GreenStox on August 18, 2015, 10:35:05 AM

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you... Roll Eyes

Not if they intentionally divide and conquer the userbase and risk 4.7 billion $ of user funds based on their stupid ego.

A true intellectual would give in his ego and achieve a compromize. These devs are just clowns that got lucky to work on this project.

What if it's their primary plan? That's possible.

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 18, 2015, 10:37:14 AM

Quote from: GreenStox on August 18, 2015, 10:35:05 AM

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you... Roll Eyes

Not if they intentionally divide and conquer the userbase and risk 4.7 billion $ of user funds based on their stupid ego.

A true intellectual would give in his ego and achieve a compromize. These devs are just clowns that got lucky to work on this project.

NextTroll

newbie

Activity: 50

Merit: 0

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: GreenStox on August 18, 2015, 10:35:05 AM

stupid devs

Well, I must say, they are still way smarter than you... Roll Eyes

GreenStox

sr. member

Activity: 1148

Merit: 252

Undeads.com - P2E Runner Game

Quote from: Adrian-x on August 14, 2015, 03:13:03 PM

Quote from: GreenStox on August 14, 2015, 03:06:44 PM

No increase until the block doesnt reach 70% fullness, its no reason to increase it until we have low block size.

I`d prefer the 8mb one if they would do it, but i think its not needed.

But anyway its not us who decide but the miners... Talking about decentralization... Bitcoin is a fucking oligarchy!

the Miners follow us, they dont want to mine a coin no one accepts. Miners can mine all the alt coins they want, I'm only accepting Bitcoin and mining it too.

its the network that gives Bitcoin its Value, the network is us, the best theory to prove his is Peter R's Metcalfe's Law correlation miners mine for value the value is in the network.

Perhaps Bytecoin can resolve this issue, the whole point of this centralization in bitcoin is getting worse and worse.
Our bitcoins are held hostage by a few greedy miners and stupid devs.

It's obvious that the blocksize should be increased, but its the plain old divide & conquer bullshit, and there are plenty of followers on the other side too, which could cause fork in bitcoin.

We really need a real decentralized system, not a pseudo one.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

I think Meni is quite rational here. Calling for a compromise is what we should be doing, I believe.

Topic: #Blocksize Survey - page 12. (Read 16144 times)