Topic: Looking for apologizes from those that wanted to change Bitcoin blocksize... - page 2. (Read 1903 times)

Way to totally miss the point. Until it confirms, you know not with certainty whether or not it will confirm. Any claim to the contrary is demonstrably ignorant.

and here is the prime example of why lauda is a sellout. he actually thinks decreasing the limit is something to smile about

FUD has always been a big part of bitcoin, and that is because of all the drama bitcoin contains. if the price moves in any direction or even doesn't move and stays stable, it doesn't matter there will always be a lot of people talking out of their asses about bitcoin's future.
if it goes down, it is doomed, if it goes up it is to the moon (haha it rhymed). just keep your head and decide for yourself what you gonna do with bitcoin and let them talk.

No. It seems like you would rather potentially break the system or add more limitations for more potential profit (greed). However, there are even people advocating for even smaller block sizes like Luke-Jr.

That would be contradictory to their own best interest. They would stand to 'profit more' if Bitcoin was a "huge success".

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

---

---

Update:
There's nothing 'new' about that.

What an unbelievably moronic, brainwashed, foolish statement.

Blocksize is only scarce because the people in power have made it so.

Such stupidity to believe this nonsense.

thats like saying "you confuse green paper with american bank notes" no one should blindly accept "payment" without confirming your actually going to get paid.
anyone that does has no guarantees and is accepting the risk.

i dare you to go to a starbucks with a counterfeit bank note for a coffee and hope the barrista is working so fast she doesnt want to check the bank note

stop trying to compare bitcoins to Visa.. bitcoin is better in so many different ways, so it doesnt need false promises of guaranteed payment at zero-confirms, especially when you cant guarantee it.
atleast talk about bitcoin for what it really is, dont oversell it

to me running a business i would rather say it takes 10 seconds to pay by cash (receive a bank note, check it and give the customer change) fully aware the transaction is settled. instead of blindly telling customers they can pay for their goods in half a second because thats the smallest time it takes to snatch a piece of paper from their hands. and then having customers shouting because they didnt get the coffee half a second after reaching into their purse

Absolutely false. Newbie. As I stated, now that blocks are routinely full, there is no way of knowing whether a given transaction will be confirmed until it has been.

now with all my explaining above. that is in regards to the year 2032 block reward 0.78125(fixed fact) where a whole bitcoin was $6400(variable).. causing there to be a need for "fees" to subsidize miners at a 50:50 ratio..

but if bitcoin was $12,800 then.. guess what. fee's wont be needed in 2032. but may be needed after the next block halving in 2036 if the $ bitcoin value didnt increase to compensate

this is why the bitcoin $ valuation rise due to the scarcity of bitcoin actually helps decrease or delay the need of fees ever being used as a subsidy/main income between a decade to a century.

the reason some people think fees are essential now. is based on some old old old opinion posts back in 2009-2011 when no one would have ever thought the bitcoin price would rise to offset costs. but knew the reward halvings would decrease income. so they thought the fee market would need to become a thing..

but now we know bitcoin $ value can and does increase to offset the drop in miner income due to halvings.. meaning we dont have to worry about fees increase or halvings decreasing... well not anytime soon. and aslong as we continue to see a nice price rise in bitcoin. we may never need to have miners rely on fees until 2140

first of all. miners (individuals connecting an ASIC to a pool) just need an asic an internet connection and a pool IP address.. guess what. the miners ASICS do not have a hard drive storing the blockchain.. instead they are handed a handfull of bytes from the pool to hash away at for upto 10 minutes.. thats it. ASICS never see the blockchain. so the blocksizes are meaningless ASIC miners...

secondly. miners (individuals connecting an ASIC to a pool) have electricity to pay. landlords to pay. even staff to pay.. this is mainly FIAT. so the amount they get in bitcoins needs to translate to FIAT. so if the amount of bitcoin decreases they will ofcourse help raise the FIAT valuation to ensure they can still pay their bills/costs/staff.

you say the scarcer the blockspace the more essential the fee's?? OMG.. im guessing you would prefer blocks of 0.1mb purely to cause large fees purely to give pools a large unneeded bonus today... screwing users..
here is a thought
increasing the blockspace so instead of 2500 paying 5cents. there can be 5000 paying 5 cents. and later 10,000 paying 5 cents.. and so on and so on.. eventually the combined total of all them 5cents equals more than the valuation of 0.78125 btc reward in over a decade. then and only then will miners care more about fees then they do about blockrewards.

... wait.. i can sense your about to rebuttle with the "terrabyte" block scare story.. sorry but it does not require a terrabyte block now. it wont require terrabyte blocks in a couple decades to appease users and pools. maths, logic and a bit of research shows that lower.. FAR lower numbers can achieve that balance needed (and only needed) in a couple decades

EG. lets say for the last couple years the cost of mining was about $10k per block..(EG 25btc@$400 since 2014-12.5btc@$800 very soon)
now lets in a couple decades bitcoin got to $6400/btc to make the blockreward of 0.78125 btc=$5000.
now all we need is another $5000 to keep miners at their $10k income total.
$5000=100,000x5cents
100,000tx=100,000x500byte average=500mb.. hell lets use blockstreams numbers because im being generous 226mb
data needed 500mb (thats right not even a gigabyte.. thats right definitely no where near a terabyte)
remember 16 years ago only a few had 0.5mb broadband majority had 54k.. 8 years ago the majorty had 0.5mb broadband and everyone was laughing at 56k
now the average is 5mb and a few have 100mb, so in 8 years the average will be 100mb and 16 years 100mb will be laughed at the same way we are 0.5mb broadband and 56k dial-up, because the internet would be far more then 100mb in 16 years.

oh and by the way the internet speed of lets say
100mb is megabit/sec..bit not byte .. so
100mbit= 12.5megabyte/sec = 750megabyte/minute = 7500Megabyte per 10 minutes
so.. knowing that peoples internet would be faster than 7500megabyte per 10 minutes.. knowing blocks could be 500mb.. thats 15 blocks per 10 minutes happily!

meaning someone with just 7mbit/s(525mbyte/10min) internet could just about cope with bitcoin (imagine it like the last remaining 0.5mb laggards of yesteryear)..
people on 14mbit/s(1050mbyte/10min) internet could easily cope imagine that as the remote villages and cornfields.. still able to browse the internet aswell
and people on 100mbit(7500mbyte/10min) could run several nodes on one connection(should they want) or rub bitcoin while playing online games, have family watching netflix all at the same time

lastly i think you will rebutt the hard drive capacity. i already mentioned that the hard driv cost of just a couple hundred dollars allowed for a 3gb-3000gb jump in the last 16 years. and so another 1000x jump in the next 16 years=3petabyte hard drive.
also 0.5gb block=72gb/day= 26tb a year..

you think thats alot i know.. but back in the year 2000, people were only comprehending 3gb hard drives. they could not even quantify a 3tb hard drive
in 16 years you will think about a 3tb hard drive the same way you look back at a 3gb hard drive.. laughing at the fact that those old hard drives couldnt even hold 5% of a call-of-duty game today or even 5% of a HD movie. you will think about 26tb in the future the same way you think about 26gb now, which will feel like a years blockchain storage equating to about half a movie of the latest XXXXk resolution 3D movie technology in 16 years

by the way. here is the rub.. segwit blocks for lets say 10,000 transactions are no smaller datawise then 10,000 transactions using traditional methods with a bigger blocklimit. thats right the same data is transmitted but some clients pretend some of the data doesnt exist, even though its actually there. so even if you see a glossy segwit logo on your FULL NODE , your hard drive will still fill up the same. the bandwidth will still be the same..
you can of course opt to be no-witness, pruned mode.. but then you are not a full node and might aswell of just used electrum or bitcoinJ instead.

again.. for emphasis.
blocks do not need to be 1tb tomorrow. they dont even need to be 1gb tomorrow. it doesnt even need 1gb in 16 years. (226mb blockstream lowball innaccurage number(but im being generous mentioning it anyway) - 500mb)
internet speeds dont need to be everyone on 1tb connections but 10mb is enough, 100mb is more than enough

please dont reply with ridiculous notions that miners need to be paid big fat bonuses today
please dont reply with ridiculous notions that blocks should become more scarcer to incentivize a bidding war to pay fat bonuses today
please dont reply with ridiculous notions that blocks need to be terrabytes in size
please dont reply with ridiculous notions that blocks to be transmitted using terrabit internet speeds

Not everyone accounts it's mining costs in dollars...
The scarcer the block space the more the fees payed the more essential the fees become
20-30 years ago Internet was a its beginning... What will it look like in 30 years?
The problem is that the protocol was agreed to be fixed. The fees cost depending on the block size.
Considering that a currency based on scarcity will still be necessary in 30 years would prove current technological deflation void and prelude a bleak future...

the $$ valuation increases to take care of mining pools costs.. this will continue for a couple decades.. there does not need to be a increase in the bitcoin reward. nor does there need to be an increase in the fee

the fee is NON-ESSENTIAL for a couple decades.. giving plenty of time for capacity to grow at a slow pace within that time.. (well blockstreamers have been known to delay capacity increases).. but by the time fees become essential. the capacity and utility of bitcoin would be there to allow many thousands of people to transact and cover mining pool costs when combining lots and lots of individual small penny fees

think LONG term, based on lets say 20-30 years.
stop thinking that we need to kill bitcoin tomorrow with large fees with no growth or terrabyte blocks with no fees.. instead of logical/slow scaling over the next few decades where blocksize and fees dont become a burden to people.
stop thinking that sidechains is the solution so people should stop holding bitcoins
stop thinking that bitcoin is doomed purely because your late to the boat and you want to grab a big ass bag of altcoins

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.

Higher fees and slow transaction times has already stifled btc growth over the past 9 months.  This stupid argument has done that.
BTC was not designed by Satoshi to spawn a side chain so it would work properly.  It was designed to have increased block size.

Any increase in fees you think you get from slowing down transactions is peanuts compared to what btc would have done in the past 9 months and going forward.  Your actions seek to kill the very thing that makes your fees.

But of course blockstream will save everyone from bitcoin's inherent flaws of not scaling.  It's a solution to a manufactured, fake problem that they have created for themselves.  And unfortunately, so many have bought into it.

wrong. some transactions are still missed even if you pay a high fee..
EG bitcoin only holds an average 2500tx a block.
if we have 7000 people all paying $2000 fee.. only 2500 still get into the next block.

dont over promise. instead go the safe route and say if you pay more then other users your chances of being in the next block are higher.
by the way when someone makes a transaction. they cant just view the pools and see what everyone else is paying. and then add a little extra.
that in itself would start a bidding war before even pressing send, if people were instantly checking what evreyone else paid in that few minute period.


1terabyte block?? where the hell are you grabbing that vapor number from..
why oh who do people who want others to use non-bitcoin solutions¹ always think bitcoin has to be either 1mb or an astronomical number tomorrow..
im gonna give it a week and i guess we will see Masha promoting monero, along with the other blockstream fanboys

It's easy to say that but when exchanges with fake volumes lead the market the assertion that bitcoin's price is rising because some Chinese traders somehow arted believing that bitcoin is undervalued suddenly doesn't make much sense. Timing and circumstances just make it seem worse as China holds the majority of the hashrate before the halving.

You confuse transactions and confirmations. Pay a fee high enough and the transaction will always be confirmed in the next block. Use side chains for 0 fees and high speed confirmations but the a value can collapse anytime. Remember that the lower the confirmations fee is the more transactions they will be... 1 sat avg transactions will need 1terabyte block!


Price reflect value of the coin perceived by market participant.

There's immersive buying pressure from Chinese exchanges, it'd be safe to assume that the recent rally originates from there.  Perhaps some miners are trying to keep their equipment profitable for the upcoming halving. Don't correlate the price with the blocksize.

Absolutely false. Newbie. They used to be instantaneous, because the backlog never exceeded the system capability, and one would be assured that any transaction would eventually be included in a block. Now, with the backlog sometimes exceeding what may be cleared, there is no guarantee any particular transaction will be included in a block until it has been.

There is no cause for apology. So I ain't apologizing for shit. Newbie.

An apology? Why? The problem is still there. The network can handle 10,000 transactions each hour, but who should be impressed?
If BTC wants to be the world's currency, it will need bigger blocks sooner or later, and sooner will be better.