Topic: I don't see why big blocks are a problem, even 10 MB blocks right now aren't. (Read 3773 times)

Those limits do not solve anything. Limiting n does not solve the complexity problem. You are a true, and delusional shill as you can't admit to being wrong. This is often see with jonald as well, but rarely with other members (not trolls or other mentally challenged individuals).

As I've told you, it's always a few *people* who do not participate in this community in any way other than shill for attacks on Bitcoin and spread misinformation.

Ahh.. look at all those BU noobs like Jbreher, Hv and above all the biggest copy/paste noob+BU troll   ****rolling drums****   paid shill Franky1.

The raw low intellect from those shills are unbelievable.

ha ha ha
seriously, you need to READ

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1897557.140

read it properly, thoroughly and completely.

i mean actually take some time and read it properly. no excuses about how you dont need to waste time on walls of text.

EG
i said it NEEDS low sigop limit to solve quadratics..
not the cludgy math crap

you went on a rant that there is no txsigops because its in policy and done by maths of segwit.

meaning you agree there is no low txsigops in consensus, but you didnt want to admit as much. so wanted to pretend a new argument where you thought i said that core already had a low txsigops.

i repeated "this is why REAL rules. real code, should be used.. not bait and switch hope and faith cludgy maths crap"

you ignored

i repeated "by saying nodes can by pass the fee math cludge is correct.
but thats why real rules need to be placed in the consensus header file. rather than the cludge
P.S the blocksigop limit is in the consensus. but from a network wide overview. where the maths cludge of core can be by passed. my initial arguments still stand."

you ignored so I  repeated
"a txsigops limit of <4k in consensus header file solves the native quadratics.!!"
you ignored and you said
"No. You didn't even admit that you were wrong about the in-existence of the 4k limit per TX, as that's a policy rule. How sad."

the policy rule and validation.cpp is where i REPEATEDLY referred to as segwits "math cludge"

i then tried to highlight
"thats maths cludge is CORE centric... not NETWORK consensus "
and
"there needs to be a proper RULE of 4k sigops that does not change."
and
"thats why having <4 maxtxsigops in the consensus.h header file would solve the issue so easily"

...

really go read it properly. you debunked nothing!!!!

i do not agree that we should stick to Raspi specs.. but i do not believe the fud of $20k servers this next decade
same as
i do not agree that we should stick to 1mb base blocks... but i do not believe the fud of "gigabytes by midnight"

normal natural growth, where obviously nodes that cant handle it wont run the software and as such new rules wont activate due to consensus.

the issues arise is when bypassing consensus and then go fud extremes to blame others when things dont go to plan by those trying to force an issue

dynamics can work and keep things on a healthy natural growth, without devs or corporations control and without things going to extremes or stalling due to fear/fud

We should rather agree that the bitcoin price of such a node should be stable.  

EDIT: It also does not really make sense to 'serve' high high end miners with a Rasp PI - that does note really fit into a 'stable' hardware picture to me, rather shows that there might be (hard- AND software) bottlenecks for high end scaling ?

Pretty much, yeah. However, certain shills will cry about censorship et. al. if the majority of the users do not side with their (obviously faulty) views.

There you have it. As long as you do not support scammers who are trying to push an idea of $20k nodes today (this includes anyone who supports C. Wright, e.g. Ver, Jihan), you are not as bad as the shills like Jonald.

Grow up and admit being wrong, idiot. The number of times that you've been debunked is converging to infinity. Do I have to remind you of your FUD with the sigops limit in recent versions of Bitcoin Core?

this early in the industry no,
in a couple decades, probably.. but more so due to hyper inflation where $20k may be equivalent to $500 purchase power today(EG a loaf of bread being $80, standard pc $20k in a couple decades)

as for you debunking anything, no
all you ever shout is "nonsensical" "wrong" "adhom" "i didnt read your walls of text"

saying such as the things above do not amount to you debunking anything
it really is time you learn consensus. it will help you
then run independant tests and scenarios

then when your handed images. actually read understand test and fully grasp what its telling you and work out if what it is telling you is valid, correct and realistic. dont just paste it because you trust your "friends"

Hahaha - at least we agree that it needs a central forum to agree centrally about decentralization needs.

Both Bitcoin forks and forks of this forum (e.g. Bitcoin.com) are much worse than the original, indeed. Status quo wins in pretty much any aspect (besides a few policies that I do not agree with, I guess).

No - other 'forks' have lower quality and less to disagree..

There is no lie. You are most definitely a shill; the pattern is very obvious. You remind me of a scammer from this forum, he's exactly like a pest. Literally near zero people want him around, yet he refuses to leave. Unwanted cancer that sticks around.

And what number, do you *cough*, agree is *acceptable* as a entry cost for a node (and not the non-listening ones)?

In case you wanted a decentralized BTCT, then it possibly should. Since this is a centralized forum, it does not need to.

... blob ...

THIS THREAD WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CLOSED WHEN IT HAS REACHED 1MB OF SIZE

... blob ...

 

lie...


and lie again...


Unless of course you can point to me actually saying that.

On top of being a proven shill for gunbot even.

You just don't know when to stop digging, do you?