Mempool is now up to 25.5 MB with 22,200 transactions waiting. - page 9.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sgbett on February 29, 2016, 04:02:14 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:05:29 PM

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

A consequence of inaction. Intentionally not doing what was supposed to be done.

I will continue to 'appeal to my authority' you will continue to appeal to yours.

It boils down to whether you trust Satoshi, or Back.

Inaction in the face of populist rhetoric is the very strength of Bitcoin my friend.

You've really turned a corner since joining the mental ward over at bitco.in. sad Cry

Maybe you'll get a block size increase, but not tonight dear

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:05:29 PM

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

A consequence of inaction. Intentionally not doing what was supposed to be done.

I will continue to 'appeal to my authority' you will continue to appeal to yours.

It boils down to whether you trust Satoshi, or Back.

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: bargainbin on February 29, 2016, 03:23:50 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: chopstick on February 29, 2016, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: johnyj on February 29, 2016, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing.
The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!
Cheesy

Exactly, you tell your handlers your shitty spam is not welcomed. Thank you very much

They're trying to get in touch with you, BTW. Wondering where to send your bonus for trying to gimp Bitcoin.
Wishing you luck & hoping you don't get discouraged

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: bargainbin on February 29, 2016, 03:23:50 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: chopstick on February 29, 2016, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: johnyj on February 29, 2016, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing.
The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!
Cheesy

Exactly, you tell your handlers your shitty spam is not welcomed. Thank you very much

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: chopstick on February 29, 2016, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: johnyj on February 29, 2016, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

A network of peers decides if my transaction is worth processing.
The very thing that was missing from legacy finance!
Cheesy

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 682

Merit: 269

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 03:11:01 PM

Did you get bought off by the trolls?

You used to make sense.

21inc doesn't have a lightning network.

The pink logo guy is shill as far I remember

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: chopstick on February 29, 2016, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: johnyj on February 29, 2016, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

The network of peers is currently limiting the blocksize.

You wanted a p2p consensus network, deal with it. Status quo until everyone agrees.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: johnyj on February 29, 2016, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke.

Just look at 21inc's Lightning Network, if there is any strong market demand for this kind of functionality, they will be sold out immediately. But the reality is that no one cares about this so called micro payment channel

Did you get bought off by the trolls?

You used to make sense.

21inc doesn't have a lightning network.

Sark

full member

Activity: 140

Merit: 100

Back log for Total fees:
5.8035 XBT

That doesn't look like spam.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 682

Merit: 269

The sky has fallen! An eternal backlog of
11426 transactions
22.37 MB
has formed
Time to flush it down the drain. Grin

chopstick

legendary

Activity: 992

Merit: 1000

Quote from: johnyj on February 29, 2016, 02:35:21 PM

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow the Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke

Yeah, no kidding. And he is purposely limiting the blocksize and thus artificially restricting the # of transactions the blockchain can handle in his mad dash to make this a reality.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: Blazed on February 29, 2016, 01:31:27 PM

We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.

Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke.

Just look at 21inc's Lightning Network, if there is any strong market demand for this kind of functionality, they will be sold out immediately. But the reality is that no one cares about this so called micro payment channel

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 02:09:40 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:05:29 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 02:02:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.

No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.

You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure.

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

The fee market is a consequence of a decision. If we decided to increase the blocksize instead we would have a free market for blockspace right now instead of this "fee market".

The decision relates to the technical security of the network. The resulting consequences are what they are but they do not allow you to make a strawman of the decision and push the narrative that it is economically rationalized when it is not.

I don't expect you to understand or recognize this though.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:05:29 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 02:02:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.

No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.

You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure.

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

The fee market is a consequence of a decision. If we decided to increase the blocksize instead we would have a free market for blockspace right now instead of this "fee market".

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 02:02:26 PM

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.

No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.

You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

No, this is a strawman you have created. The block size limit is a technical, security measure.

The fee market is a consequence, not a decision.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on February 29, 2016, 02:00:30 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.

No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.

You are fooling yourself if you think that this debate of a "fee market" vs a "free market" does not relate back to economics. Most people here at least do know that the blocksize limit is a economic policy tool when used in this way.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on February 29, 2016, 01:55:21 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

... and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

You keep saying that but it is not true. BIP109 (Classic) has more than 500 lines of code.

Quote from: coinzat on February 29, 2016, 01:51:37 PM

It is clear that most of these unconfirmed transactions are a part of a ddos attack on the network from some people who support block size increasing.

Correct. You can see this if you analyze the fees.

To change the blocksize itself is only a few lines of Code, Classic includes more mechanisms, like the grace period and miner threshold.

If you ask me I would rather see the blocksize increased compared to having any developer dream team on board. As long as the blocksize is increased Bitcoin will do just fine without any extensive changes.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

It is not about who has the best developers. It should be about who has the best client. Bitcoin Unlimited for instance has all of the latest features that Core 0.12 has plus extra features like Xthin which decreases block propogation times by a factor of fifteen at least.

Therefore you could argue that Bitcoin Unlimited 0.12 is better then Bitcoin Core 0.12, since it is open source software after all, we can take all of the improvements Core has done and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

Just because arguable Core has the best developers it does not mean they get to dictate to everyone what the blocksize limit should be. It can even be argued that a group of technocrats with deep technical backgrounds do not actually have the expertise to decide on the economic policy of Bitcoin, a field which is far removed from their technical expertise.

No one is in the business of setting Bitcoin economic policy.

Developers are concerned with security parameters, nothing else.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 29, 2016, 01:37:47 PM

... and just simply increase the blocksize limit, it is only a few lines of code after all, to change this single parameter.

You keep saying that but it is not true. BIP109 (Classic) has more than 500 lines of code.

Quote from: coinzat on February 29, 2016, 01:51:37 PM

It is clear that most of these unconfirmed transactions are a part of a ddos attack on the network from some people who support block size increasing.

Correct. You can see this if you analyze the fees.

coinzat

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Young but I'm not that bold

It is clear that most of these unconfirmed transactions are a part of a ddos attack on the network from some people who support block size increasing. but what I do not understand why there are some empty blocks although the network need them like this
I hope that this delays will end today

Topic: Mempool is now up to 25.5 MB with 22,200 transactions waiting. - page 9. (Read 7841 times)