Topic: Permanently keeping the 1MB (anti-spam) restriction is a great idea ... - page 4. (Read 105069 times)

I have to roll my eyes that the same people who were railing against the centralization of power with the devteam when it looked like the devteam was in favor increasing block sizes, are now saying that we must get devteam consensus now that the devteam has been successfully divided on this issue.  

Calm down, guys.  You got what you wanted in the first place: Decentralization of power.  Now there is Bitcoin-Core and Bitcoin-XT, and real decentralization of power to the actual community of users and miners.  The community, not the developers, gets to decide using the normal consensus rules for a hard fork. And that's a good thing, right?

Unless, maybe, it looks like people might not be stupid enough to pick the inferior network you think maybe you can make a bigger profit by limiting them to?  So now you have to scream more about XT and how the choice shouldn't even exist because maybe the users will be smart enough to make the right one?  

Tough toenails.  The world moves on, and the 1MB block size limit is just another barrier that it's time to overcome.  

Bitcoin does not exist to line Blockstream's pockets.  

@VeritasSapere
I fully agree with all of your points.

Just a small correction here.

I'm not sure what you are referring to that I'm wrong about...please specify.

As far as your Miners comment...everybody knows that. As of right now, if the blocks were increased to 20 MB, those blocks won't be filled because the network doesn't have enough transactions to fill them yet for years. In the future, when transaction volume multiplies tenfold, the miners will need a lot more hashing power than they have today.

However, with the bitcoin halving next year, the difficulty will definitely increase and the rewards may not be worth it for small mining pools. As a result, they will fold and only the largest and wealthiest mining pools will survive, thus centralizing the bitcoin network even further by depending on fewer pools.

On another note, I would like to ask you if you believe that the hashing power from a few thousand ASICs currently used to support the network would be more powerful and cheaper in the long run than hundreds of thousands of peers mining with their CPUs and GPUs?

Core will never increase the block size because the Core development team can not agree with each other on this issue. So the only way that the Bitcoin block size can be increased is by a hard fork. What matters here is not the agreement of the Core developers but the consensus of the users of Bitcoin and the miners. We the people get to decide, this is how Bitcoin was designed to be.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors. I would like to continue using Bitcoin directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses, It would also be better to keep the network as inclusive and cheap as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. I do think that increasing the block size is the most decentralized option. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers. I am a miner myself and I do not think that this will effect decentralization of mining because miners do not run the full nodes, the pools do. The pools function  in a similar way to a representative democracy, the difference being is that I can switch my miners over to another pool within seconds. It is the miners that decide not the pool operators, the pools serve the miners.

We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

I do suggest that everyone reads Mike Hearn's article on why we should fork. Everyone should remember that this is not a popularity contest it does not matter who you like more or what you think of these people or what their motivations are, what matters is what is in the code itself. This is a crossroads in history and I hope that we collectively will make the right decision. So think carefully and please be rational and apply reason and decide for your self what kind of a Bitcoin you want.

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

When you say "my arguments are all over it." are you referring to these three posts:




Or is there another thread where you've formulated your position with arguments to support it?

Of course not.  But rage-quitting because you don't get your way is the XT approach, so D&T gets an honorary Gavinista title.   

not anybody liking bigger blocks is a Gavinista.

i am pro-bigger-blocks because i want that anybody is able to use bitcoin; not just a few people (which may use tor or not: who cares...  it isnt a technology for the people then)

I don't know if D&T specifically supports XT, but his only significance at this point is as the first to rage-quit over not getting his way with larger blocks.

That makes him a honorary Gavinista!   

You are wrong.
Miners today get a hash from their pool and they try to solve. It doesn't matter if this hash is part of a 20 MB block or an empty block. It is all the same to them.
If they solve it, they send it back to their pool.

@iCEBREAKER
Show me the quote, where D&T supports BitcoinXT. As far as I remember, he never did.

This thread is also very informative:

Bitcoin 20MB Fork
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-20mb-fork-941331

But it's locked.  Gavin drops in a few times to fail at defending his 20MB gigablocks.


Visa scale.  On a "pretty good" computer and a "pretty good" home internet connection.  Using Bitcoin's inefficient-for-everything-except-security decentralized Blockchain.

Seems legit.   

Holyshit, the bold part..... My eyesbrowns jump off my face.... speechless.

I inferred that by increasing the block size to 20 MB, the current ASIC miners would have to do a lot more work, burn a lot more electricity and probably have to add a lot more ASIC hardware in order to continue operations in the future for very little extra gain. Some of them will continue to make a profit, some of them will break even, while others may accrue a loss. As a result of this unprofitability over time, some of those miners will abandon Bitcoin. Never did I mention that ALL ASIC miners would abandon Bitcoin nor did I use the word "instantly".

In addition, with all of the centralized ASIC miner "factories" out there, if in time, they become unprofitable to maintain and decide to pull out of the "game", it will be a huge blow to the processing power of Bitcoin and result in major setbacks in terms of transaction time.

People are erroneously assuming that somehow Bitcoin will collapse if the above scenario were to play out. I am saying that individual miners will simply pick up the slack and eventually return Bitcoin to a decentralized network of peers. This is not 2012 when there were probably only about 10,000 people involved in Bitcoin. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Imagine the combined power of all those CPUs and GPUs connected to the blockchain. I'm not sure if it would be as powerful as the ASIC network is today but I'm pretty sure it would still make a very robust network.

That's all I'm saying!

PS - What happened to ASIC Cloud Mining on CEX and other sites? Looks like it "instantly" disappeared.
I wonder why?
Unprofitability... I presume!

Lost it at "yappy-yay."   

I'm stealing that, and the first thing I'll do with it is describe the Gavinista, sorry, XT Manifesto.

Don't blame smoothie for being mr extrapolator.  The OP started the strawman extrapolation by including the "Permanently keeping" operator, in order to frame all who disagree as irrational, extremist 'always and never' types (always 1MB, never moar).

Too bad for D&T his huffing and puffing failed to blow Core's house down and remake Bitcoin in the image of Square.  It was a nice try, to be sure.   

no problem. It is good to be informed.

keep your two cents and read the whole thread then... my arguments are all over it.

You call this thread FUD. Yet your post spreads FUD way more than the OP. "USGavin" "GOOGLHearn". You sure got them there!
If you have some sound arguments refuting the OP then by all means share them. Just my 2 cents.

The opening page was really worth a read: whatever one might think it is important to be well informed before saying anything regarding the matter.
I'm not an expert but seeing the enormous division this thing is crate amongst everybody in here I think we should be more intelligent and more humble to take the time to think before saying anything.

thanks smoothie by the way..

noobs, redditards, whatever, this propaganda thread perfectly served the USGavin and GOOGLHearn FUD.

Bitcoin is not some paypal-visa-mastercard alike service, and not some yappy-yay way to tip the little african with frappuccinos.

finally, nobody knows nothing about satoshi. so just stop godifying each of his word, like "oh hey thats what he wants, means, shits..".
people dont even know if its a single person or a group, nsa or cypherpunk, blabla, wtf im out of this nonsense. peace.

lol oh let's be presumptuous.

Stop assuming I know nothing about Satoshi. Let's stop with the personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand buddy.

First off you indicated that it would be not worth reading this main post of D&T for "noobs".

I think reading it does bring lots of things into clear perspective.