Topic: Mempool Observer Topic - page 83. (Read 22151 times)

lets say you live in greece. but greek government want to impose obscene taxes. where citizens dont get to send or receive wire transfers in minutes unless they pay obscene taxes.. now lets say there is another electoral candidate to make laws that allow a fairer system for greece..

your opinion is dumb to think that the current greek government should stay in power forever..and make all the obtuse laws they want, where no citizen has a vote and the only option is to migrate out of greece if unhappy
if you truly think that the Unitary parliamentary republic should always govern greece with no choice of governance. then you are promoting totalitarianism


bitcoin was never suppose to be a totalitarian one government forever system
core are the central point of failure totalitarians

recognise that and stop just echoing the mantra of your forum wife who loves adores and wants core totalitarian to govern bitcoin forever and do what they please unopposed, un-scrutinised, un-protested, before community node readiness

It sounds fair. If you don't want to wait in the line, you don't push everyone, or tell the doorman to ignore the people in front of you. You just choose to go in a place that is less crowded.

Then you have completely misinterpreted me. I'm pinpointing exactly that; Bitcoin, as a network, is not owned by anyone. If you look closely, it functions as a tool that caters to individual preferences. But, if you zoom out, it becomes apparent that this accomplishment would be impossible without a collective effort.

You do possess the right to advocate for change. What you lack is the authority to impose your changes on others. If you are unable to effect change in Bitcoin, the responsibility lies with you for not being persuasive enough.

People who moved to Bitcoin Cash did it. They realized the nature of Bitcoin is being permissionless, forked off the network, raised the middle finger and made Bitcoin Cash. Yet, you (plural) are here, complaining why Bitcoin does not have big blocks.

I don't understand why people equate the influence of an "average person" with a Core developer.

First things first, an average person does not code. Demanding change, and doing change differentiate on the action part. And allow me to argue that doing change is exponentially more impactful than demanding it as if you're a customer in a store; you're not. This is free software. People are freely writing software, oriented towards their beliefs. Most of Bitcoin Core developers have clearly a liking on second layer solutions. Some others did not share the same vision, and migrated to working on other protocols. They are not obligated to align with our choices; rather, we are tasked with evaluating whether we find the conditions of a network agreeable and choosing to align with them.

Secondly, whom would you trust more? A random stranger on the Internet who wants to tell developers what to do, or an actual developer who has been working on Bitcoin since its inception? I'll take the latter, thanks. I obviously trust the actions taken by someone who has devoted their entire life on studying and writing software, and who is closer to the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem more than anyone else.

Oh ok let us use this argument against everyone who complains about ordinals then, if you don't like how btc is currently dominated by brc-20 transactions go ahead and migrate somewhere else, how does that sound? Why do some people think it "their" bitcoin and nobody has the right to demand a change?

All of you saying this  would not say the same thing if block increase was proposed by core devs, but when an average person talks about it you start pointing fingers and ask them to migrate, why did you not say the same thing about Segwit then? Did any of you tell corr devs to fuck off if they did not like how btc was prior to segwit? 

Just for the record, I hardly transact on BTC blockchain, I am heavily invested in mining, I never encouraged block size increase, but I find it funny as hell the way some people here think they have the right to change the protocol to ban ordinals and also think others have no rights to demand something else.

The "if you want bigger blocks go to xyz" comments are going to age like milk when core devs increase block size, people will be quoting these comments for laughter.

Btw the way when I say "you" i don't mean you blackhatcoiner I am talking in general terms to everyone who falls into this category.

So short break, back to what this topic was about:



And with this if your plan on saving a few satoshi was to send a 20sat/b fee and then accelerate it with Viabtc
- Viabtc is getting overcrowded by both and legit users and bots
- Viabtc is losing the hashwar right now, less blocks on average per day and they start pausing free tx if they haven't hit a block in 6 hours
(they had 11% over 3 months but only 9% over the last 7 days)
- Nodes are dropping even 20sat/b fees so you might want to connect to larger nodes before you broadcast it

And, on top of all:
- it's Saturday so weekend time
- it's two days before the new year so like almost everything is closed

Based on what's happening now, if the ordi fomo doesn't end miraculously starting with the 8th of January we're going to see some really nasty shit!

It is not entirely true if you say that Bitcoin investment is only for rich people. Everyone can invest in Bitcoin and if you are talking about losses, I suspect your friend is a trader, which for me is like gambling with your money. I suggest you to become a long term Hodler and do the DCA method to invest in Bitcoin. This is important because those who find success are usually long-term Hodlers.

When someone suggests migrating to another protocol, you promptly dismiss the idea, recognizing that no other network can rival the consensus at that scale. That is the best selling point, and probably why you're here in the first place no matter how you perceive "utility". But, in my opinion, the mature choice is to do migrate. That is a feature of decentralized systems, not a bug. If you don't make usage of it, you deceive yourself. You have the opportunity to join a network that aligns with your perspectives but instead choose to complain about being told what to do.

You can't have both harmony and everyone happy. You either accept the compromises of a harmony, or you find yourself unsuitable to this network under these conditions, and leave.

BSV is poor example of big block size. It's doomed to failed since it's associated with faketoshi, don't care about cost/difficulty of running full node[1] where many decide to drop support[2] and even implement confiscation stealing mechanism[4].

[1] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/910
[2] https://github.com/Blockchair/Blockchair.Support/issues/1045#issuecomment-1504229868
[3] https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2023/01/11/bitcoin-sv-drops-as-robinhood-ends-support/
[4] https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoin-sv-hardfork-significant-security-risks/

But there is a 5 pages context to that part you quoted, not sure why would you qoute a tiny portion of a huge context, but ya, anyway.

 
Yes, using 1980s standards it is pretty big.


I never said I wanted big blocks, I said if I MUST take the action i would only raise blocksize big enough to kill alts not to compete with visa, but then again this argument of " if you want big blocks go to BCH or BSV" is pretty naive, honestly.

I assume, most of you saying this would be repeating the same stuff if the larger block blockchain was longer and kept btc ticker on all exchanges, you would be asking the small blockers to go use BCH if they wanted small blocks.

The way I see it is that most people don't even care about blocksize, they just want that version of bitcoin that exchanges call btc and is worth 40k, be it 4MB or 40MB makes no difference to the majority.

I wonder what would be the excuse when btc blocks are raised some point in the future, are you going to still say it is bad solution and ditch bitcoin or you will accept it?

 
Really? Then why segwit? Why did blocks go from 1MB to 4MB if bigger blocks are a bad solution?

These are both examples of your desire to raise Bitcoin's blocksize limit already put into practice.


I'm saying 4 MB is already pretty big. If you want bigger, go to BCH or BSV. Ultimately, the point is, even bigger blocks isn't a good solution. It's an easy solution but will eventually cause problems as we can already see with BSV.

Not sure if this was meant to be an argument or a joke, please elaborate.


Mining pools enforce the code, they have more power than core devs, pools can use other client versions or even the same core version modified to thier wants and they would sustain it, core devs can't do shit without majority pool support.

But as i said in my last post, it is easier and more natural for core devs to propose the change and not the opposite, and ya its possible that some devs are biased due to some personal benefits

BCH and BSV are waiting for you.

As for the rest of you're spiel, you're forgetting that blocks are already bigger, up to 4 MB as was proven with the first Taproot Wizards inscription.


The dumb apes are but a small sliver of Ordinals transactions... It is 99% dominated by BRC-20 activity these days. This has actually been the case since May.

https://dune.com/dgtl_assets/bitcoin-ordinals-analysis

Could satoshi imagine that instead of revolutionizing and developing cryptocurrency world, we would upload and sell dumb ape images on Bitcoin blockchain?

You have to keep in mind that sometimes when a few blocks are mined in a row, i.e. one block mined right now, second block mined 2 minutes later, the third block mined 4 minutes later and so on, instead of one block in a ten minutes, fees suddenly fall. When a new block hasn't been mined for 40 minutes or 50 minutes, many people make transactions with higher fees or use RBF feature with the hope of getting it confirmed because not everyone watches mempool.space every time. Delayed blocks cause sudden rise in transaction fees and then fresh mined block quickly lowers the fees. You have to keep in mind all of these for more accurate picture.

Convince people by words? Well, ordinals or pools or mining team can convince developers more by giving them a bribe.

you do realsie in late 2016 core used the open consensus of different brands to vote on their plan. they only got 45% by the following summer..
core devs and their sponsors(NYA) then pushed and mandated the change in under 2 months to get an unnatural 100%


its not difficult for core nor something they cant do. they can easily do it and it wont destroy the network. but they CHOOSE not to, not due to security concerns but dev politics and sponsorship deal reasons

its core devs that are to blame because bitcoin is not some self writing AI code. guess who has been the sole beneficiary of code control and decision making of bitcoins roadmap for many years

mining pools dont write the code, nor propose different options. they just collate transactions in the format defined by cores code..

please learn who wrote the code, whos roadmap bitcoin upgrades follow..  then you will understand who is to blame

Exactly what I would do, raise the block limit to kill doge, eth, Solana, trx and every other major altcoin.



Change is "hard", by itself, there is a reason why many major projects today still rely on Fortran libraries, a language that is nearly 70 years old (probably older than 99% of forum members), you can still get a decent high-paying job knowing Fortran, there is also a reason why many of these multi-billion projects still use old un-optimized code that works, change is certainly hard and the outcome could be terrible if one thing goes south, heck, there is a known difficulty bug that doesn't take into account the duration it takes to solve the first block of every epoch, it has been there since the first client Satoshi wrote, and nobody bothered fixing it, because it ends in a hard-fork.

If you ask the average IT manager how they feel when they touch one tiny group policy you will understand that change is indeed hard, so ya, let's not make it seem like it's a matter of dev cores performing a double-click and wala! block size is now 100MB with nothing broken along the way.

With that said, the blocksize change isn't as "difficult" as many would make it sound, at least not the forking part of it, actually, it's probably easier now than before in that regard, probably 95% or so of blocks are found but known pools, so some coordination between core, pools, exchanges and major wallets operators is not impossible, it's pretty doable and could be done slowly, and safely.

But then again, it's too much work that nobody seems to be interested in just yet, and when I say nobody I mean somebody whose words matter (not the bunch of us arguing on this topic  ), but say Antpool, Foundry, Binance, Coinbase,  Trezzor and CMC decided they wanted to increase blocksize, do you think core would oppose them? if they did, do you think they can actually stop them from forking the network and keeping the longest chain and BTC ticker on all major exchanges and wallets? Would Core want to stay obsolete with a client nobody who matters uses it? how long would it take before all other nodes come to realize that they are stuck on an old obsolete blockchain that nobody mines on?

It's true that if code devs took the initiative and started to lobby for bigger blocks -- it would be a lot smoother and easier to happen than if Binance stated that, but again, that won't be easy, how long it took Taproot to activate? proposed around 2018? merged in 2020? activated near the end of 2021? so 3-4 years for a soft fork to take place, took a lot of lobbying and patience, doing a controversial hard fork is gong to be a lot more difficult.

Maybe it's possible the core devs spoke to major pools about a block size increase and pools denied their request? have you tried contacting these major pools and asked if they would be interested in raising the size to 12MB? why is it always core devs to blame?

change by itself is not hard, core do it alot.. they dont even need community node readiness anymore before they change things.
but specifically change that goes against cores sponsored roadmap is hard, change that delays or prevents cores plans never gets a chance

when you look at core being the defacto reference client and all other brands are REKT and treated as things that should fork to an altcoin if they want to propose a network protocol change, to see who follows. you soon learn how difficult it is for a non core sponsored dev to get core to veer away from their sponsored roadmap and actually allow a change that benefits actual bitcoiner that want actual bitcoin utility.

achowe as been a big implementer of moderation, in IRC, mailing list, github and this forum... he has set job titles of different modules of core to specific paid devs, where by they control, self review and self "force-push" their own code. meaning its not open to anyone to join and take part in but instead managed by certain sponsored devs who have the open access to do as they please, un-scrutinised.

trying to convince these managers to go against their own plans is a endless fight with no resolution and usually ends up with commenters on the github being banned for even Nacking a feature that can cause problems for the community. whilst the feature that causes problems gets "forced pushed" into release candidates/masters by the manager with merge privileges.. self pushing their own code un-reviewed by others.

as you admit unless you have kissed the ring and shown loyalty to their roadmap and sucked enough eggs to get recognition they will add your code if it aids their roadmap. but wont add it if it goes against their roadmap

Thank you!

Change is hard.

If you're one person, somehow you need to pour 14 8-hour days to make a minimum viable product of something that needs to be made. And that's assuming you even know what needs to be made in the first place, as well as how to make it.

Then there's getting people to join the idea. Unless you are already a famous developer like any of the Bitcoin Core members, the only option is to go to meetups like Bitcoin Amsterdam and then convince people that this is an idea worth making. (Ark)

Even when you do have something and assemble a team, occasionally problems appear that are obstacles for it being used on a wide scale (Lightning Network). Or maybe people simply don't trust your software (Liquid).

Occasionally, you will face opposition and even attacks, even if the change is something small (e.g. a website).

Then there's always the possibility that nobody ends up using your software. Or maybe they don't use it the way you intend them to (Rodarmor's Ordinals were never intended to cause a traffic jam but look where we are). Or your commits don't get accepted. Or the Pull Request you made is ignored for months.

Personally, I think many of us here are at least trying to do something, in their own ways. There are many problems Bitcoin is facing besides Ordinals, there's also Greenpeace and anti-privacy spokespeople, which I'm doing my own things to counter. But scalability is not a one-man dev team.

Although you mentioned there is a lot of research on second layers, there are very few people who will actually implement a production version of stuff in papers, and this extends well beyond cryptocurrency. It's part of the reason why specialist engineers are paid so much.

Block size will always be a division among bitcoiners, but the main solution is found in changing things. But like I said above, change is hard. People are unstoppable forces, and are capable of building anything (even alternate Core clients @franky1) but this is seemingly an unmovable object.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object?

Bitcoin is becoming a currency that when someone hears about it, they will think about its fee. I remember the time I was planning to move $10 ETH and it was asking for a $15 fee. I guess it was Coinbase back in 2017 or 2019. I don't remember the exact time. ETH has the problem because people were using their smart contract feature to create shitcoins and the same thing happening with Bitcoin at this moment. People used the taproot protocol to create shitcoins and the number of daily transactions reached over 700K. ETH moved from POW to POS and their devs claim they will be able to handle 100K transactions per second in the future. How many transactions Bitcoin network can handle? Satoshi said he is sure that we will have a huge volume or no volume. didn't he thought about the solution for the huge volume?

the reason complaints result in no action. is because it is CORE that control the code that majority blindly follow/accept without checking. however
trying to follow another node making proposals not of core design gets hit with REKT campaigns and told to F**K off

core then dismiss complaints and pretend they are not developers in control of the reference client and instead pretend to be janitors. but still dont want anyone outside of their sponsored team creating a protocol change outside of cores roadmap... and that is the definition of a dictatorship

learn what a dictatorship is and stop pretending that those not in core are the oppressors
when those in control of changing the laws refuse to repeal laws that abuse the community but dont want the community to propose different laws that oppose the law makers(core) abusive laws

as for opt-in
core change the rules without needing the community to be ready nor able to understand the new rules. this is a security risk of having less nodes protecting the network if core say the community dont need to upgrade to activate a new rule

your scripted speeches still sound alot like a certain idiots mantra. you have a few days left to decide if 2024 will be a new year for you where you challenge yourself to be better. or waste another year being a sheep to someone elses speeches
decide who you want to be in 2024

The fact that you are incapable of convincing the overwhelming majority to switch to your protocol, lies on you. The fact that the overwhelming majority cannot be forced change is a property of a free decentralized ecosystem.

In a dictatorship, people don't choose what they want. In here, you are free to opt-in to any protocol you want.

What? Seriously, what do you mean, I don't get it.

Complaints. All I read is complaints and nothing in action. The Bitcoin network is in a state where the arguments for change must be very compelling. It is like complaining why you can't push a giant rock alone. Extensive research is underway on second layers, recognizing that adjusting the block size limit isn't a viable long-term solution. I neither believe that the block size should remain at 4 MB forever, but at least that is tested, and is proved to be quite sustainable.

Again, I do not see the cryptocurrency space as an on-chain volume competition. Its intrinsic value extends beyond that-- aiming to uphold a socially resistant status quo against change. It is a prerequisite needed for money of that kind. Financial transactions are a second layer problem, rather than a main layer.