Looking for apologizes from those that wanted to change Bitcoin blocksize...

Swimmer63

legendary

Activity: 1593

Merit: 1004

Quote from: jbreher on June 14, 2016, 09:29:47 PM

Quote from: yayayo on June 14, 2016, 06:01:45 PM

Bitcoin in its current state as a decentralized network doesn't scale well enough to allow for every lolly to be settled as an individual transaction on the blockchain.

Please show your math.

Right. That's we need to increase the block size. I'm glad you see that.

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: yayayo on June 14, 2016, 06:01:45 PM

Bitcoin in its current state as a decentralized network doesn't scale well enough to allow for every lolly to be settled as an individual transaction on the blockchain.

Please show your math.

Swimmer63

legendary

Activity: 1593

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 13, 2016, 06:31:20 PM

So why not increase the block reward by 10 and the block size by 10 too? We come back to the distribution problematic and what does it means to have a protocol. It's clear that for early adopters bigger block less rewards more users is the way to wealth... Nothing to do with the success of Bitcoin. Individual greed at its finest...

Remembers the dollars does everything of Bitcoin will ever be able to do as a currency... It even sent people to the moon.

If you can't make the distinction between small technical adjustments to handle growth and changing the block reward I can't help you. No one can.
One Satoshi talked about changing. The other is one of the most fundamental characteristics of bitcoin that Satoshi said would NEVER be changed.

yayayo

legendary

Activity: 1806

Merit: 1024

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 03:07:44 PM

YES. If the blocksize is increased let's increase it massively. No more bullshit once and for all. Every halving 10x more block size. The 2mb proposal was stupid in the sense that it would change nothing and fix only temporarily. By implanting 10x more blocks space at every halving there should be enough space forever...

No matter how dumb the XT and ClassicCoin proposals were, you can still find people that demand the maximization of idiocy. These bigblock-fanatics enjoy spreading their doomsday cult that is irrefutable by empiric evidence, because all its "reasoning" is based on religious delusion. These people will never apologize, since they are not able to learn from facts.

Bitcoin in its current state as a decentralized network doesn't scale well enough to allow for every lolly to be settled as an individual transaction on the blockchain. Demanding that shows a lack of basic technological reasoning. A solution for microtransactions is already being implemented: Lightning Networks. This will allow for efficient scalability without putting Bitcoin's decentralization at risk.

ya.ya.yo!

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

*Also in the thread to state unequivocally that they aren't apologising for shit*

Quote from: countryfree on June 14, 2016, 05:36:49 PM

This isn't the first time I see a plan, with a timetable, and I think it doesn't make sense as no one can predict BTC's future growth. I would like it better if there could be some automatic adjustment, or a single rule that no block shall be more than half full.

For automated and coded solutions that don't rely on human input, people should have paid closer attention to BIP106 (particularly the second variant, which can take a while to wrap your head around). With a few tweaks to prevent miners gaming the system and to not increase to blocksize too quickly, it could have been the ideal solution.

countryfree

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1047

Your country may be your worst enemy

Quote from: franky1 on June 14, 2016, 02:56:18 PM

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 02:44:32 PM

You have a strong argument. What I didn't like about the solutions proposed is how temporary and disruptive they were. For example at each halving block size x10 would be more realistic if the road of increase transactions must be taken.

10x scaling per halving?

ok we are at 1mb for last few years, this is your maths for 10x scaling
2016 10mb
2020 100mb
2024 1gb
2028 10gb
2032 100gb

have you not read my post that had realistic numbers of about a maximum of 500mb in 16 years far far far less then your 100gb or 1tb predictions.

the lower number i quoted is both achievable and non impacting on users usage or costs of use. and like i said maximum. meaning as long as the $ bitcoin price rises the requirement for even 500mb scaling becomes less needed to cover costs, which you ellude to as being the big thing you care about but dont understand

This isn't the first time I see a plan, with a timetable, and I think it doesn't make sense as no one can predict BTC's future growth. I would like it better if there could be some automatic adjustment, or a single rule that no block shall be more than half full.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 03:07:44 PM

Quote from: franky1 on June 14, 2016, 02:56:18 PM

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 02:44:32 PM

You have a strong argument. What I didn't like about the solutions proposed is how temporary and disruptive they were. For example at each halving block size x10 would be more realistic if the road of increase transactions must be taken.

10x scaling per halving?

ok we are at 1mb for last few years, this is your maths for 10x scaling
2016 10mb
2020 100mb
2024 1gb
2028 10gb
2032 100gb

YES. If the blocksize is increased let's increase it massively. No more bullshit once and for all. Every halving 10x more block size. The 2mb proposal was stupid in the sense that it would change nothing and fix only temporarily. By implanting 10x more blocks space at every halving there should be enough space forever...

personally the size of the blocks should be whatever mining pool servers can cope with.. for instance even if there was a hard limit of 10mb. the mining pools can make any size block they like going from 200bytes to 10mb.. but one thing is for sure. if the network could only handle 4mb right now(its more but anyway) that is all we would get, because anything more than what the network can work with, would just start causing lots of orphans and system lag

there is no reason to push for high numbers up, just as much as there is no reason to hold low numbers down.
all we need to do is get scaling up without it causing a 2year delay/discuss scheme where nothing is done each time

we should not need permission from coders. or their dooms day. infact the best solution is no hard code that requires downloading updates from one source to grow. but instead a "network alert" that prompts the limit to change at block X when the requirement to expand is needed.
no coder debate. no 2 year discussion.. just a change of settings that occur within a program when needed

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: franky1 on June 14, 2016, 02:56:18 PM

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 02:44:32 PM

You have a strong argument. What I didn't like about the solutions proposed is how temporary and disruptive they were. For example at each halving block size x10 would be more realistic if the road of increase transactions must be taken.

10x scaling per halving?

ok we are at 1mb for last few years, this is your maths for 10x scaling
2016 10mb
2020 100mb
2024 1gb
2028 10gb
2032 100gb

YES. If the blocksize is increased let's increase it massively. No more bullshit once and for all. Every halving 10x more block size. The 2mb proposal was stupid in the sense that it would change nothing and fix only temporarily. By implanting 10x more blocks space at every halving there should be enough space forever...

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 14, 2016, 03:01:20 PM

Bitcoin doesn't have a monopoly on cryptographic value transfer, there is a point at which rational people switch to alternatives.

CORE do have the monopoly... and.. here is the biscuit to go with your gravy, CORE also have the monopoly to switch people to THEIR alternatives (sidechains)
maxwell and lukes morals have been bought and twisted over to altcoin lovers. they have lost desire in expanding bitcoin
maxwell loves his monero and sidechains and luke loves the profits merge mining alts.. they dont care about bitcoins utility

beastmodeBiscuitGravy

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

Quote from: Kprawn on June 14, 2016, 02:57:19 PM

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 14, 2016, 02:31:29 PM

I'm looking for apologies from those that got down on their knees for Blockstream, bought the fear campaign, and now left us with inadequate capacity for a halving rally.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 80 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 258 bytes, this results in a fee of 20,640 satoshis (0.13$).

There's over 4.7 BTC in fees sitting in the mempool. 25,000 transactions worth 134,000 BTC... just sitting there. All because Maxwell's company scared you... shameful.

I'll be awaiting apologies here. vvvvvvvvv

Just 0.13$ .... It's still way cheaper than any other competitive system, where cross border transfer of currency is involved. Roll Eyes

.... Nobody scared anyone... what will be scary, is when the whole

experiment fails because the Block size were increased without good reason. The other side of the coin is, people were scared into thinking the roof were coming down, when the foundation were still

strong enough to handle a lot more.. Wink

Bitcoin doesn't have a monopoly on cryptographic value transfer, there is a point at which rational people switch to alternatives.

ETH investors are counting on you keeping this mindset.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Blocksize will still need to be increased. Just because the price went up does not mean our problems are solved.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 14, 2016, 02:31:29 PM

I'm looking for apologies from those that got down on their knees for Blockstream, bought the fear campaign, and now left us with inadequate capacity for a halving rally.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 80 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 258 bytes, this results in a fee of 20,640 satoshis (0.13$).

There's over 4.7 BTC in fees sitting in the mempool. 25,000 transactions worth 134,000 BTC... just sitting there. All because Maxwell's company scared you... shameful.

I'll be awaiting apologies here. vvvvvvvvv

Just 0.13$ .... It's still way cheaper than any other competitive system, where cross border transfer of currency is involved. Roll Eyes

.... Nobody scared anyone... what will be scary, is when the whole

experiment fails because the Block size were increased without good reason. The other side of the coin is, people were scared into thinking the roof were coming down, when the foundation were still

strong enough to handle a lot more.. Wink

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 02:44:32 PM

You have a strong argument. What I didn't like about the solutions proposed is how temporary and disruptive they were. For example at each halving block size x10 would be more realistic if the road of increase transactions must be taken.

10x scaling per halving?

ok we are at 1mb for last few years, this is your maths for 10x scaling
2016 10mb
2020 100mb
2024 1gb
2028 10gb
2032 100gb

have you not read my post that had realistic numbers of about a maximum of 500mb in 16 years far far far less then your 100gb or 1tb predictions.

the lower number i quoted is both achievable and non impacting on users usage or costs of use. and like i said maximum. meaning as long as the $ bitcoin price rises the requirement for even 500mb scaling becomes less needed to cover costs, which you ellude to as being the big thing you care about but dont understand

rizzlarolla

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 02:44:32 PM

if the road of increase transactions must be taken.

What other road is there?
Oh yeah, the Luke jr. road to less transactions, or the core road to nowhere fast.

Please explain to me how increasing fees, scarce block space and continuing user adoption can work together?

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 14, 2016, 02:31:29 PM

I'm looking for apologies from those that got down on their knees for Blockstream, bought the fear campaign, and now left us with inadequate capacity for a halving rally.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 80 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 258 bytes, this results in a fee of 20,640 satoshis (0.13$).

There's over 4.7 BTC in fees sitting in the mempool. 25,000 transactions worth 134,000 BTC... just sitting there. All because Maxwell's company scared you... shameful.

I'll be awaiting apologies here. vvvvvvvvv

You have a strong argument. What I didn't like about the solutions proposed is how temporary and disruptive they were. For example at each halving block size x10 would be more realistic if the road of increase transactions must be taken.

Quote from: jbreher on June 14, 2016, 02:33:39 PM

No idea. WTF is a "pond duration storage solution"?

Typo... I wanted to write long duration... But pound storage(underwater is quite discrete:))

beastmodeBiscuitGravy

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

I wonder if Masha Sha is related to Ma Ya. Huh

The small block propagandist on the chinese forum 8btc.

Quote from: beastmodeBiscuitGravy on June 14, 2016, 02:31:29 PM

I'm looking for apologies from those that got down on their knees for Blockstream, bought the fear campaign, and now left us with inadequate capacity for a halving rally.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 80 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 258 bytes, this results in a fee of 20,640 satoshis (0.13$).

There's over 4.7 BTC in fees sitting in the mempool. 25,000 transactions worth 134,000 BTC... just sitting there. All because Maxwell's company scared you... shameful.

I'll be awaiting apologies here. vvvvvvvvv

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Masha Sha on June 14, 2016, 02:22:10 PM

Let's say that new block size is introduce how retro compatible would it be? With all those paper wallet ...

100%

Quote

... and other pond duration storage solution?

No idea. WTF is a "pond duration storage solution"?

beastmodeBiscuitGravy

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

I'm looking for apologies from those that got down on their knees for Blockstream, bought the fear campaign, and now left us with inadequate capacity for a halving rally.

https://bitcoinfees.21.co/

The fastest and cheapest transaction fee is currently 80 satoshis/byte, shown in green at the top.
For the median transaction size of 258 bytes, this results in a fee of 20,640 satoshis (0.13$).

There's over 4.7 BTC in fees sitting in the mempool. 25,000 transactions worth 134,000 BTC... just sitting there. All because Maxwell's company scared you... shameful.

I'll be awaiting apologies here. vvvvvvvvv

Masha Sha

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 252

Quote from: rizzlarolla on June 14, 2016, 07:38:25 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 14, 2016, 12:56:27 AM

Yet my TX's confirm within the next block 99% of the time. I wonder why that is.

I have some possible explanations for you.

First, should I trust your guesstimate of "99%" of the time. Have you done 100 transactions lately?
(you will have needed to do 100 transactions to calculate "99%" with any accuracy)

second, you probably pay a decent fee. Maybe a little more than recommended?
(top fee payers usually get first dibs)

Third, the "problem" of increasing fees and transaction backlog is only really starting now.
(of course, Core want higher fees, so this is not a "problem" to cores thinking. this is the start of cores road map)

(fees have gone up in dollar terms with the rising price of bitcoin)
If bitcoin value rises more, so will fees rise in dollar terms.
Add in Core wanting higher fees for scarce block space...

Anyway, you getting into the next block means someone else couldn't.
That is how it is now. let the fee wars begin.

Thank you for your rational and explanation! And your conclusion is exactly what I wanted to say:

Let the fee war begin.

Let's say that new block size is introduce how retro compatible would it be? With all those paper wallet and other pond duration storage solution?

rizzlarolla

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Lauda on June 14, 2016, 12:56:27 AM

Yet my TX's confirm within the next block 99% of the time. I wonder why that is.

I have some possible explanations for you.

First, should I trust your guesstimate of "99%" of the time. Have you done 100 transactions lately?
(you will have needed to do 100 transactions to calculate "99%" with any accuracy)

second, you probably pay a decent fee. Maybe a little more than recommended?
(top fee payers usually get first dibs)

Third, the "problem" of increasing fees and transaction backlog is only really starting now.
(of course, Core want higher fees, so this is not a "problem" to cores thinking. this is the start of cores road map)

(fees have gone up in dollar terms with the rising price of bitcoin)
If bitcoin value rises more, so will fees rise in dollar terms.
Add in Core wanting higher fees for scarce block space...

Anyway, you getting into the next block means someone else couldn't.
That is how it is now. let the fee wars begin.

Topic: Looking for apologizes from those that wanted to change Bitcoin blocksize... (Read 1903 times)