Topic: Don't we need to increase block weight/size? - page 3. (Read 725 times)

Everyone's a bank in Bitcoin
Everyone's a bank on the Lightning network


That's totally wrong

Increasing the block size would solve our current situation, but how would we get most of the network to accept the change? In line with that comes many cons. Main reason is that it would increase hardware and bandwidth demands, thereby increasing cost to operate a node.

There's a somewhat 'controversial(?)' reason as to why core has not yet increased the blocksize. I think it's still being censored here, so if anyone wants the link to the reddit discussion send me a pm.

so if we P2P channel so I buy a car from you placed auto advert then I just keep it open ?


or unless the other side closes the channel which hub/banks will do when they need paying so that
they too can meet running costs of closing channels with other hubs/banks. Settlement needs real BTC
that are on the BC and fake copy will not do.


The miners will host the big hubs and we had this story already about fees that were more or less zero
two years ago.

Nodes are just relays and my argument concerns LN hubs and inter bank settlement and fees on top of BTC Tx fees  
[/quote]


I can always tell when I am winning and the other side resorts to insults but you did
not answer my points and want to talk around them so please let me know what
specific point you would like to disagree on and also note that I am not against
Segwit which kinds of brings file compression to the blocks using "Extended blocks" to
store data in BC because short term it is a good fix

There's no advantage to closing the channel having used it once. So

4. Channel stays open, 0 fees



Anyone can become a Bitcoin bank, just open a wallet or a Lightning channel



Lightning will be free. Or virtually free.

And my Lightning node won't charge fees, alot of people will do this to encourage the network to be better connected. Probably alot of traffic will get routed through free Lightning nodes (why pay?). Someone trying to charge high fees is gonna have a hard time competing with that.

You don't know how it works, basically. Please learn, you sound crazy.

People forget that Bitcoin came to fame because of the block-chain and LN takes everything "Off block"
until you settle up with various hubs that may or may not have good channels to other hubs/banks

Sorry but they are trying to have their cake and eat it

Block-Matrix is whats needed, not hub/banks so the scaling that's going on is at the wrong level and
miners will be queuing up to host major hubs and we know what they can do with fees already so yes
they might allow you to keep a channel open to them for a month but what account charges will we
be getting from them for this service.

Outside this church that i find myself in other people are having the debate
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7njeph/the_lightning_network_is_a_scam_it_has_nothing_to/
125 comments and the jest of the answers basically acknowledge that it can is more economical if
you don't use the car and take the bus which is basically whats going on with Lightning 

Yes and what happens when you close the channel after Alice sends Bob $2 does it result in

1. Next to no fees
2. Bob having to pay $30 to miners as his Tx hits the block
3. Both Bob and Alice having to pay the Bitcoin miners $30 each


Wallets and Hubs are not the same thing at all and not only have I tried to explain this many times myself here
but others are saying just the same as me outside the church


And it went on to say "Virtual free transaction fees" so maybe "you're resistant to learning" when it comes
to hubs keeping balance, semi centralized and they charge fees just like banks do

People forget that IF they start to actively use the lightning network, there will be far less on-chain-transactions.
Most TX's will be handled on the LN. There won't be the need to close a channel immediately. Your coins can 'remain' there without any problem.
This, compared with exchanges adopting segwit, would lower the fees to make it 'payable' again.



The point is.. increasing the blocksize is just a short-short-term-solution.
Its the easiest way of 'handling' this problem. Just double the blocksize every X years, when fees get too high.
You can double the blocksize now.. but in 1-2 years you will have the same problem again and your 'increase it not too much' is totally gone.
The only, real, way to reach mass adoption and an extremely massive scaling is by introducing a second layer to BTC.

Anyone can open a Lightning channel with anyone else, and anyone can also open as many channels as they like. But I guess you're going to call anyone with more than 1 channel a bank


You've had it explained to you many times already, but it seems you're resistant to learning and just want to shout about everyone being a bank instead. You can use the same logic for Bitcoin mainnet, it's absolutely full of banks. One of the original taglines to promote Bitcoin was, in fact, "be your own bank".

---

agreeing with everyone who says "blocks aren't full yet", or "Bitcoin needs validation performance increases first so the network can handle it"

Would you like to send me your email address so that I can forward on to you the messages that I get when my posts here are deleted and
then lets talk about "conspiracy theorist"

Yes banks not same as Bitcoin if we are talking about Ripple and VISA, they work fast and don't charge such high fees
and SWIFT like Bitcoin is living in the days of the past.


Do you deny these hub things take transactions of the block-chain that we were told was the best thing since sliced bread
Do you deny these hub things charge fees and keep a private ledger 
Do you deny these hub things use a degree of centralization

disagree all you like but I will call these "Hub things" banks because they are

You "think" it would not hurt to increase it. Ok, I want achow or someone who has a deeper understanding of the block sizes and block propagation to make a comment on OP's "thinks it would not hurt to increase the block size".

OP, then why are the Core developers unwilling to do it? There has to be a good technical reason, correct?

I heavily disagree with Anti-Cen who is going full conspiracy theorist, saying "censorship" and "ln is the same thing as banks". That's not how any of this works. Lightning Network is so vastly different from banking.

Lightning Network	| Banks
Completely Trustless	| Requires trust in a financial institution
Instant payments	| Payments take days to be routed through ACH

etc, etc...

I highly recommend that anybody not familiar with how the lightning network operates read this overview on how transactions are created and routed through the lightning network.

As for the rest of what they're saying, I'm not even going to give them the satisfaction of arguing with them because it seems very much like they're not interested in the technical details of how things work, but would rather go around with a sign on a stick telling everybody the end is nigh.

Anyone that writes a financial system and needs to protect against a 51% attack needs to find another job as do any
programmers that need CPU-wars between miners to keep Intel and AMD rich along with big oil and the icing on the
cake is Bitcoin will not scale and they knew this from day one, like nine years ago.

80% of the Bitcoin code is about mining, the miners and developers are one and the same and no one works for free
but now they have got greedy and are offering us bread today and jam tomorrow but it's too little, too late IMHO

Nothing at all "Block-Chain" about LN and the main sales pitch is on about "Off-Chain" which seem like back peddling
from what they have been trying to promote for the past nine years and if you look closer then it uses banks that host
private ledgers and charges fees but the development teams like to call them hubs instead.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfvhiqFw7A

Come on 20,000 full nodes just to process seven transactions a second when VISA can process 25,000 per second
and the network has 1000 X less processing power than the Bitcoin network and people fall for this clap trap.

I am aware my posts are being watched but they dare not drop by and have it out with me so do they
fear developers that are "Not on the team" and how long will it be before the masses see that huge
transactions fees is the real reason for $6,000 being knocked off the price of BTC
 

I like very much the comment that large blocks help a 51% attack,.

Could someone please explain more these points:

1. "BTC developers are getting rich pretending ..." what does this mean, unlike DASH, there is no percentage for developers is there?

2. "Moving data to LN is killing the block chain": is the lightning network structured in a consensus manner similar to the block chain? so effectively it becomes a Block-Tree not a single chain, but still every spur is agreed upon before moving on to the next?

Well is i am sure you know already when not opening threads and removing comments but reading them instead that
Lightning (LN) with its hubs/banks is using a degree of centralization so that old cherry won't work no more and LN takes
data "of-Block" so we may as well throw Block-Chain in the bin instead of making out it's the best thing ever designed by
man.

Yes you can undo the damage of big blocks by restructuring the data and is something called a data migration
but the BTC developers are getting rich pretending we are running out of space, disk space is worth $25 to store
a mere 250 bytes and they kind of like the introduction of banks that are trying to call hubs in LN

Maybe the development team needs to go back to school and learn what distributed computing is all about because clearly
the development team have dropped the ball and they are going about the fix in the wrong way entirely.

"But centralization can kill Bitcoin"

Fees are killing Bitcoin and we are getting some centralization anyway so why not patch for now and do the job
right using block-matrix or is that getting in the way of profits for them.

As a quick fix for crazy high fees playing with block size and timing might increase
Bitcoin from 7 TPS per second to maybe 15 TPS like it has done for ETH but its just a quick fix
but my code will sort out the 19,000 miners that we don't need anymore

public static money MaxFee=1.50 // only need 1,000 miners and then they can then earn fair days pay for fair days work.

Longer term the block-chain needs to scale and if it's so good like they have been saying
for years then why would they now be telling us that "Off-Block" is the way to go.

The development team are not loyal to us so why should I be loyal to them and its not like they
didn't know nine years ago that the block-chain as implemented would never scale, it was always
a hack job from the start and now they are milking it and this could result in a total crash

Graphene is really where it's at. A block size in and of itself isn't a problem. Storage is cheap. It's bandwidth. So if we can get blocks broadcast with low overhead, high compression, and low latency, we can continue to enjoy decentralization while upping transaction processing capacity.

Of courde high fees can't kill bitcoin, it even didn't affect it overally but don't you hear words from people who says so high fees make it useless to make transaction? Bitcoin is decentralyzed for me, safest option and great currency. These high fees does shit job, I can't receive transaction quickly without ultra high fees. And yes, some people prefer high fees and spammed network because they use it for theirself. Block size must be increased and I think currently even 4MB will be absolutely enough.

Why raise blocksize if blocks aren't utilizing the recent blocksize increase of SegWit? Why raise blocksize if companies still don't batch their transactions? Why raise blocksize if a lot of software still uses horrible fee estimation algorithms? We have enough tools to keep fees reasonably low if only they were used more. But a lot of transaction traffic comes from centralized services like exchanges, and they are too incompetent or malicious to implement those technologies.


Some studies suggest that 8 MB would significantly decrease the network node count. We haven't even seen how SegWit's blocksize increase would affect it, so it would be very reckless to do any blocksize increases soon.

Sure, it's bad that fees are high, but high fees are not going to kill Bitcoin, because they are driven by open market, they are not installed by one side only like it happens in some centralized systems.
But centralization can kill Bitcoin, you can't undo the damage of big blocks if the blockchain became bloated past certain point.