Topic: Hearn's "Faith in Humanity Shaken" after People Awaken to His EVIL Plan! - page 2. (Read 6012 times)

If you don't see a problem even in a short-term, I just cannot help you.  At 20MB/block, you'll be adding 3GB per day.  Storage is just one aspect.

Ok, I understand , You are one of those conspiracy theorists without evidence who doesn't take either their word or work in support of raising the capacity as any indication... Big, old bad Blockstream(never mind the other 40 devs) out to eat your children and all... Gotcha.

I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.

The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.

It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.

No they don't.  Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.

That is a non-problem problem. OMG 60GB!! Not like an average - and btw streamed/downloaded - game, or a couple high quality movies don't take the same place. No, people don't have 60 -or 600 - GB to store their MONEY on their 1-2 TB HDDs... Or buy one extra for 100$ to run a node to help the network for thei thousands of dollars of BTCs , or the fact that they can just rent remote nodes for 10$ a month..Much cost, can't do. Also, obviously, all the supposed millions of users running nodes today, (no, they are not), and will not ever if 60GB goes to 600GB.

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

And Core doesn't either?  What sort of misleading propaganda are you spewing?

Why increasing blocksize is a good idea?  It will kill decentralization which is already a problem for bitcoin.  The chain is already over 60GB.

I'm not sure why they even discuss this, there is no problem.  Hearn wants fast transactions, I'm not sure why he even worked on bitcoin, he should have started his own altcoin long time ago.  I guess now he will.

You want fast transactions? You pay for it.  Problem solved.  Next.

The block size growth should be kept below decline of hardware prices.  Otherwise you pushing cost of running the network on miners and nodes.  Running a node is already a form of taxation.  Decentralization is a key feature of bitcoin and it should be protected, IMHO.

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

Gavin still wants main chain scaling, that was the whole Bip 101 idea.

Anyway, the most important thing is we need to implement a scalability
solution ASAP.  Until that happens, Bitcoin is in "dangerous waters"
to quote Mike... and the market apparently agrees.

Yes. But Gavin is trying to predict what the network will look like 20 years down the road. While forking is actually a healthy activity that should probably be done every few years. If you can accept that logic, then BIP101 is ridiculous.

Conservatism is the best approach. We should decide between 2MB or 4MB blocks and fork again down the road as needed. All this bitcoinclassic constitution nonsense is yet another distraction that is going to create more division and more delay.

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that 
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

You are correct about Hearn , but his opinion isn't even worthy of my contempt as he is a proven liar and has betrayed Bitcoin for the banks.

You are incorrect with regards to Gavin as he supports a settlement layer along with most of the 45 Core developers .

http://gavinandresen.ninja/it-must-be-done-but-is-not-a-panacea

In fact he claims they are essential -

Why are you spreading misinformation? Repent!

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  There are already technologies to do fast transactions, not sure why someone would want
to change bitcoin to do that and more importantly why?  You don't need bitcoin to do fast transactions.  Ask Visa.  They did it and are very successful at it.

What's do you mean?

Hearn and Gavin want Bitcon to scale on the main chain,
which is a no-brainer good idea.

It's Greg Maxwell/Blockstream that  
want Bitcoin to be a settlement layer.

The “layer 2” services that are being built on top of the blockchain are absolutely necessary to get nearly instant real-time payments, micropayments and high volume machine-to-machine payments, to pick just three examples.

Hearn simply does not understand bitcoin.

He thinks it is suppose to be Paypal with super fast transactions.  

Here is a detailed rebuttal ---

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/lies-fud-and-hyperbole-1329647

There are so many lies that I had to break it up in 2 parts.

I haven't been following much of Bitcoin for a while now. Is what I read true that the Bitcoin network has lots of congestion and that transactions take too long?