If you want bigger blocks but hate BU...

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 21, 2017, 08:24:41 AM

It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter.

Sorry to burst your liar-tarian non-aggression principle bubble Peter, sorry, I mean Jonald, but the entire point of Bitcoin's consensus rules is to force certain values and parameters on the network

SLIPPING

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: AngryDwarf on March 21, 2017, 05:00:42 AM

Quote from: Xester on March 21, 2017, 04:49:31 AM

There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee.

They can already do this now. They can reduce the maximum block size produced by either using a command line parameter, or by setting a lower size in policy.h and compiling there own software. It is not a protocol breaker. They can't increase it with the current enforced protocol, but past actions have indicated a willingness to increase blocksize with demand (until it hit the hard limit).

Right -- with BU , miners can either go for larger OR smaller blocks, whatever is more profitable and that is fine.

It's like Peter Rizun has been saying all along -- there is a natural fee market without any forced fix blocksize parameter.

gredisgold88

sr. member

Activity: 714

Merit: 250

stop all mining bitcoin and flock moved to the mining altcoin, ASIC will die slowly, and if this happens then bitcoin will die slowly. turning to traders for the moment, the right time to move to altcoin and waiting for the continuation bitcoin unlimited. bitcoin original hopefully will not disappear and still has a high price, if the price of bitcoin fell to $ 10 for bitcoin unlimited, is a fear of its own.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

What's the need for this when BU is oh-so popular with real users, and not just with the shill accounts or sybil nodes? Grin

Desperate, jonald. You're SLIPPING homie

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Xester on March 21, 2017, 04:49:31 AM

There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee.

They can already do this now. They can reduce the maximum block size produced by either using a command line parameter, or by setting a lower size in policy.h and compiling there own software. It is not a protocol breaker. They can't increase it with the current enforced protocol, but past actions have indicated a willingness to increase blocksize with demand (until it hit the hard limit).

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 19, 2017, 08:47:01 PM

I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:

Enter "Bitcoin Original".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/

There is probably a conspiracy between miners to reduce the blocksize so they can increase the mining fee. Well it is not clear yet but after reading I was shocked that satoshi programmed bitcoin to have huge blocks. But anyway if segwit will be used as code in the mining then I do hope that the mining fee will decrease and the transaction speed will increase.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: Foxpup on March 20, 2017, 10:44:20 AM

Quote from: Lauda on March 20, 2017, 09:59:05 AM

I "predcited" the usage of the name "Bitcoin Original" back in 2016 (although I can't bother to find the exact post).

Here it is.

A simple Google search away; thanks!

Quote from: Foxpup on March 20, 2017, 10:44:20 AM

Let them find out the hard way. It's the only way they'll learn. I don't know why you're still trying to educate them.

I don't want the newbies to fall for the false teachings of Jehovah's witnesses. Undecided

Quote from: 0xfff on March 20, 2017, 11:41:08 AM

YES YES YES YES. I don't like segwit. I don't like bitcoin unlimited. This is the answer.

This is almost worse than 'emergent consensus'. You don't really have a valid reason to dislike Segwit that much TBH.

Quote from: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all...

It is a bad idea; as simple as that.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 19, 2017, 08:47:01 PM

I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:

Enter "Bitcoin Original".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/

I'm glad to see you're looking for other solutions than just shilling for BTU.

Quote from: Sundark on March 20, 2017, 10:56:37 AM

We have Bitcoin Unlimited. What will be next? Bitcoin United, Bitcoin Original or maybe Bitcoin Origin.

Why we can't learn how the biggest and the most successful altcoins are managing their forks/updates and implement similar solution?

BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic?

How about Bitcoin Prime Grin

I fear its really not going to matter what solution to scaling we end up with because we are facing a far more dangerous problem called CENTRALIZATION.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 12:03:36 PM

Great question and I do not know the answer. But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack.

Unfortunately no proposal seems to solve this, neither temporarily nor permanently. But yes, I can also agree that scaling at least won't make it worse.

I've since took the time to read more carefully the link on the OP. The ideas are good, but the end goal is slightly bit unrealistic. Just because Metcalfe's Law has been more or less followed this far it doesn't mean the patter will repeat itself. Reverting to Satoshi's original code will also probably raise even more political issues than what we currently face... It's better to scale step by step in order to cope with political problems and user's opinions and because this is simply new terrain for us and we don't have the expertise to solve this once and for all...

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 11:37:48 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 11:10:58 AM

Quote from: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 11:06:07 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 09:04:41 AM

I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.

I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam?

Not sure what you are asking.

We can agree that a blocksize spam filter does not work because it will cause more problems to people who genuinely want to use Bitcoin to transact than to spammers who seem to spam just for the sake of spamming. But an aggressive fee market will have the same effect... Raising fees will hinder genuine usage, hence my question: at what cost can the fee market handle spam attacks? Spammers seem to have no problem spending quite a few coins spamming to begin with...

Great question and I do not know the answer. But the more bitcoin can scale on chain, the more cost prohibitive is this attack.

nemgun

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 533

It is good to get back to origins when you are uncertain about what to do, but i think it is a bad idea to apply them. Satoshi's statements are old, and the actual technologies was just theories when he was still comming in the forum back in 2013, only fools could decide to follow what he said, because it is a different time, with different actors and situations.
Better thinking to a reliable solution then applying old sollutions, or old predictions.

0xfff

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

YES YES YES YES. I don't like segwit. I don't like bitcoin unlimited. This is the answer.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 11:10:58 AM

Quote from: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 11:06:07 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 09:04:41 AM

I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.

I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam?

Not sure what you are asking.

We can agree that a blocksize spam filter does not work because it will cause more problems to people who genuinely want to use Bitcoin to transact than to spammers who seem to spam just for the sake of spamming. But an aggressive fee market will have the same effect... Raising fees will hinder genuine usage, hence my question: at what cost can the fee market handle spam attacks? Spammers seem to have no problem spending quite a few coins spamming to begin with...

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: DomainMagnate on March 20, 2017, 05:41:51 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 19, 2017, 08:47:01 PM

I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:

Enter "Bitcoin Original".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/

Interesting read.Didn't know that Satoshi actually proposed no limit block size.
One thing I dont understand is how more transaction will increase the price of bitcoin.
" So 32x bigger
blocks (32x more transactions)
would correspond to about 32
= 1000x higher price - or 1 BTC
= 1 million USDollars."

The reason that an increased amount of transactions results in a stronger Bitcoin is because people see Bitcoin as being more convenient or more legitimate to use which results in more people using Bitcoin - more people using Bitcoin results in more merchant adoption of it and wider acceptance which in turn again results in more users and a higher price.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: unamis76 on March 20, 2017, 11:06:07 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 09:04:41 AM

I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.

I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam?

Not sure what you are asking.

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 09:04:41 AM

I do not believe we need a 'spam filter' in the form of a blocksize -- the normal fee market can handle that.

I too think spam filters in the form of block size aren't feasible, however at what cost can the market fee handle spam?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Sundark on March 20, 2017, 10:56:37 AM

BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic?

many people still running those nodes, which is good.

Sundark

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 502

We have Bitcoin Unlimited. What will be next? Bitcoin United, Bitcoin Original or maybe Bitcoin Origin.

Why we can't learn how the biggest and the most successful altcoins are managing their forks/updates and implement similar solution?

BTW what happened to bitcoin XT and Classic?

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 20, 2017, 05:35:44 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 19, 2017, 08:47:01 PM

I happen to like the idea of BU but not everyone agrees on it, so here's another viable solution just in case:

Enter "Bitcoin Original".

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/

Yeah there is a reason on why it was lowered to the current block size, but I guess people will want to pretend Satoshi's first thoughts are law.

Yeah, the original reason was spam, not for any of the other reasons small blockers espouse.

I disagree... the other reasons was the impact that this would have had on disk space needed for the Blockchain and also the spinoff affect of

that to people that has to run a node. He knew this would lead to a situation where less people would be able to run a node and he wanted to

avoid or delay that until the network has grown big enough. I think this was a very good idea to have nodes with smaller Block sizes at the

start, when there were less transactions and people willing to experiment with this technology. Cool