Pages:
Author

Topic: #Blocksize Survey - page 4. (Read 16117 times)

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 16, 2015, 02:59:44 PM


Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories.

OK, let's add geography and politics to the list of things about which Zarathustra knows very little.

Switzerland is a confederacy, not a direct democracy.  The have multiple sub-jurisdictions and ultimate power resides in the heavily armed populace of the cantons.

That's all to deal with the fact that majority rule doesn't scale beyond groups of ~100 people (because we can't remember more names/faces and tragedy of the commons + negative marginal returns ensue when we try).

Zar, please say less and listen more, because your colossal ignorance is an embarrassment to the forum, your fail-teachers, and your fail-parents.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland

The pure form of direct democracy only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[11] The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with instruments of direct democracy).

Ridiculous.
1. I live in Switzerland
2. I spoke twice on that podium in Glarus to the people, until the officials forked me away from the podium
3. Appenzell was the last canton that gave the woman the right to vote
4. Switzerland is the most direct democracy on the planet and that's the reason why companies like Xapo move to this country: The results are better than in elitist/feudalist ruled countries.

Imagine the disaster if people like you, the headbuck, the brg444, the popescu and alikes would rule that country....
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
September 16, 2015, 01:02:22 PM


Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories.

OK, let's add geography and politics to the list of things about which Zarathustra knows very little.

Switzerland is a confederacy, not a direct democracy.  The have multiple sub-jurisdictions and ultimate power resides in the heavily armed populace of the cantons.

That's all to deal with the fact that majority rule doesn't scale beyond groups of ~100 people (because we can't remember more names/faces and tragedy of the commons + negative marginal returns ensue when we try).

Zar, please say less and listen more, because your colossal ignorance is an embarrassment to the forum, your fail-teachers, and your fail-parents.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland

The pure form of direct democracy only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[11] The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with instruments of direct democracy).

Let Popescu tell him: http://trilema.com/2015/why-representative-democracy-doesnt-work-and-doesnt-make-sense/
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
September 16, 2015, 12:46:56 PM


Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories.

OK, let's add geography and politics to the list of things about which Zarathustra knows very little.

Switzerland is a confederacy, not a direct democracy.  The have multiple sub-jurisdictions and ultimate power resides in the heavily armed populace of the cantons.

That's all to deal with the fact that majority rule doesn't scale beyond groups of ~100 people (because we can't remember more names/faces and tragedy of the commons + negative marginal returns ensue when we try).

Zar, please say less and listen more, because your colossal ignorance is an embarrassment to the forum, your fail-teachers, and your fail-parents.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Switzerland

The pure form of direct democracy only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.[11] The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy (representative democracy with instruments of direct democracy).
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
September 16, 2015, 12:10:49 PM
"BIP000" belligerence

BIP000 is just the natural expression of Bitcon's Honey Badger "don't a shit what you say" philosophy reflected in the domain of blocksize debating.

Face it, XT got #REKT.  The Gavinistas can't even keep their fail-nodes and fail-pools up, but expected us to hand them the keys to Satoshi's Kingdom?   Cheesy

G.T.F.O. noob!  Go play with the other losers at bitco.in or voat/v/bitcoinxt.

(Just kidding, we value your flailings for their entertainment value.)
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
September 16, 2015, 11:15:30 AM
Anyway, since some are determined to deflect away from technical proposals and throw silly memes around, we'll drag the topic back to one of merit.

The ideal solution is one that doesn't create a blocksize too large for full nodes to cope with, but at the same time, one that doesn't force a large number of people off chain.  Even doubling to 2MB in one go is quite high when you think about it, so we should aim to increase (or decrease) in smaller increments more often, if needed.  One possible route is to take the best elements of BIP100 and BIP106.  BIP100 only considers what benefits the miners and not the users.  BIP106 only considers what benefits the users and not the miners.  So neither is particularly balanced on its own.  If we can find a way of allowing half of the "vote" to go to the miners and half to an automated, algorithmic vote based on traffic volumes, then we maintain some kind of equilibrium that should (in theory, at least) benefit the network as a whole.

Code:
Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig to: 
    raise blocksize limit by 12.5%,
    lower blocksize limit by 12.5%,
    or remain at current blocksize limit.  

This vote, however, only counts for half of the total vote and the other half is determined by algorithm based on network traffic:

If more than 50% of block's size, found in the first 1008 of the last difficulty period, is more than 90% MaxBlockSize
    Network votes for MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize +12.5%

Else if more than 90% of block's size, found in the first 1008 of the last difficulty period, is less than 50% MaxBlockSize
    Network votes for MaxBlockSize = MaxBlockSize -12.5%

Else
    Network votes for keeping the same MaxBlockSize

The 12.5% part is open to negotiation, some think 10% is more reasonable (i.e. BIP105).  If every 1008 blocks is too fast, we could (for example) increase that to 2016 blocks, approximately every two weeks.  Tweaks are inevitable, but I feel it's something that could work if it's not too complex to code.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 16, 2015, 11:05:26 AM


Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 16, 2015, 10:36:14 AM
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 16, 2015, 10:26:39 AM
I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).

and you gavinistas gov pigs will be centralized? lmao. Cheesy


The several big blockians and the 'Bitcoin unlimited' people will be decentralized as well. But together they are a majority to raise the limit.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 16, 2015, 09:57:03 AM
I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).

and you gavinistas gov pigs will be centralized? lmao. Cheesy







@doomad:




edit: place your bets gents: https://bitbet.us/bet/1191/the-hearn-gavin-scamcoin-will-fizzle-in-2016/ Grin Grin Grin
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 16, 2015, 09:51:56 AM
I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
September 16, 2015, 09:50:05 AM
oh noes, isolation Sad

lol for centuries, this has been one of the main argument for the socialist bs agenda: "if you are not with us you are alone.."

bouhouohouhouhouh pathetic.

the greatest minds have always been alone standing for their ideas, rejected by the majority of brainwashed sheeples.

you forkers will end up owned by the same corporations (but all together yeayyy), using a centralized system which security would be "under control" and some flashy ph0undation (or LaB, so fancyyy ^^) with their "governance" and "regulations".

so lol no GFY.

bitcoin is sovereign, if you dont like it, go ahead and use any fork altcoin that suits your onchain-micro-transactions-coffee-spaming or just go with XT already.. but you wouldnt uh?  Grin Grin Grin

Again with the "you only care about microtransactions" BS.  Change the record already.  I've stated enough times by now that your paranoia over microtransactions is just deflecting the issue:

People tend to make the assumption that a larger blocksize would encourage more microtransactions or other transactions sent without a fee.  To an extent, that's possible (but not a certainty by any means), so there is a balance to be struck to ensure there is space enough for legitimate fee-paying transactions, but not so much space that most of the traffic being processed doesn't give any reward for the miners securing the network.  1MB almost certainly isn't enough, but how much is too much?  That's where most of the discourse seems to focus, and rightly so.
Third party layers should be strictly reserved for micropayments and transactions that don't include a fee.  And as much as small block proponents obsess about micropayments, they really aren't the issue.  Even after they're swept under the carpet, Bitcoin still needs to support more than two-thirds of a floppy disk every ten minutes.  If it doesn't, something else will.  
Just about every single opponent of larger blocks is completely fixated on micro-payments and thinks that once those are swept under the carpet that the scalability issue is magically solved forever.  That's just plain wrong.  Larger blocks will become a necessity as the usage increases and prolonging the inevitable is only going to result in more disruption later.  

Get it?  It's.  Not.  About.  Microtransactions.


altho it seems to me the gavinistas are the ones pretty alone in this nonsense.. Cheesy

You're the one who thinks you can have a system where you can ignore the wishes of miners, merchants, payment processors and users.  You've made it abundantly and abhorrently clear what your view of Bitcoin's future is and I'm pretty sure most people don't share it. 
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 16, 2015, 09:39:57 AM

edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD

The stream blockers (marxist kids@core) won't be able to block the stream. You'll get big blocks next year.

Roll Eyes such arguments.

but hey guess wat? we wont because we actually dont need it.. where my mass adoption?! Lips sealed

too bad cuz i coulda appreciated you noobs forking off asap: need to "isolate" bitcoin from your constant fud and bs.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
September 16, 2015, 09:23:41 AM

edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD

The stream blockers (marxist kids@core) won't be able to block the stream. You'll get big blocks next year.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 16, 2015, 08:39:33 AM
HEY PETER!! so many fancy graphs and "equilibrium points" you came up with at that conf!





just waooow.
so much intellectual... BULLSHIET.


plus, that shwartzy voice of yours.. please don't bother "coming back" tho. Grin


edit: does peter seems lonely? hell yeaaaa ^^


edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 16, 2015, 08:30:23 AM
oh noes, isolation Sad

lol for centuries, this has been one of the main argument for the socialist bs agenda: "if you are not with us you are alone.."

bouhouohouhouhouh pathetic.

the greatest minds have always been alone standing for their ideas, rejected by the majority of brainwashed sheeples.

you forkers will end up owned by the same corporations (but all together yeayyy), using a centralized system which security would be "under control" and some flashy ph0undation (or LaB, so fancyyy ^^) with their "governance" and "regulations".

so lol no GFY.

bitcoin is sovereign, if you dont like it, go ahead and use any fork altcoin that suits your onchain-micro-transactions-coffee-spaming or just go with XT already.. but you wouldnt uh?  Grin Grin Grin


edit: altho it seems to me the gavinistas are the ones pretty alone in this nonsense.. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3724
Merit: 3063
Leave no FUD unchallenged
September 15, 2015, 06:51:13 PM
Larger blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

  • Those who want to use Bitcoin as a payments network
  • Miners
  • Merchants
  • Payment Processors
  • "Mainstream" users

Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

  • Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class
  • Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply
  • Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain

Either we find a solution that these groups can all agree on, or we go our separate ways and implement our ideals unhindered by the other group.  Increasingly, it's sounding like these ideals are not compatible.  I'm pretty sure the larger blocks group have been dealt a stronger hand, so the smaller blocks group should be looking for a compromise while they still can.  I'm not naive enough to think that we don't need people to run full nodes, because we do.  But at the same time, people running full nodes have to concede that they aren't much use without the miners.  The miners will want larger blocks to collect more fees by supporting more transactions.  This has to be done in a careful way, granted, but it has to be done.  This "BIP000" belligerence is just sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la-la-la-I'm-not-listening" and you're more than welcome to keep doing it, but it's not part of the discussion everyone else wants to have.  So don't be surprised if you isolate yourselves in the process.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
legendary
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1049
September 15, 2015, 06:01:01 PM
Sorry to say, the sound quality is very very bad. I can not listen to any of the four. Undecided
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
September 15, 2015, 05:53:17 PM
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Wihtout a Block Size Limit" - Peter R
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKDC2DpzNbw&t=0h26m21s




Pages:
Jump to: