Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE - page 6.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 03:31:36 AM

You're talking bullshit, man. Transaction fees are at the very core of the bitcoin protocol, so don't tell me that bitcoin was designed with free transactions in mind.

You don't even understand what I am talking about and you apparently know shit about the protocol.

Obviously, transactions are CURRENTLY free only for "old" coins that haven't been moved in a long time and only until there is a block reward. When the block reward stops 100 years from now, transaction fees will be the only thing that keeps mining profitable - so there will be no free transactions anymore.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 03:31:36 AM

If you make the transactions free forever

And how do you make transactions free forever with today's Bitcoin protocol ? That is impossible and that is NOT what i meant.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 03:31:36 AM

and this will centralized the infrastructure - how will it be different from what a paypal is today?

Just how did you come to the conclusion that free transactions = centralized infrastructure ?

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 03:31:36 AM

How are you going to prevent people running huge bitcoin nodes to get arrested in Spain, or just killed without a trial in Pakistan, by US authorities?

Arguments:
- Huge nodes can be run on I2P and perhaps TOR.
- Huge nodes can be run on Mesh networks.
- If Bitcoin becomes really mainstream, huge nodes will be run by companies/corporations, academies, governments

Are you assuming that Bitcoin will be a geek - only currency forever ? If that is so, then centralization will not be a problem, because there will not be any scalability problem.

Logically:
- If Bitcoin does not become mainstream => Scalability is not a problem anyway (little amount of transactions = low bandwidth/storage requirements)
- If Bitcoin becomes mainstream => scalability is not a problem, because governments, companies & academies will be running big nodes.

So your logic is fatally flawed.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

You're talking bullshit, man. Transaction fees are at the very core of the bitcoin protocol, so don't tell me that bitcoin was designed with free transactions in mind.
If you make the transactions free forever and this will centralized the infrastructure - how will it be different from what a paypal is today?
How are you going to prevent people running huge bitcoin nodes from getting arrested in Spain, or just killed without a trial in Pakistan, by US authorities or a different mafia?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 03:17:21 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 05, 2013, 03:12:58 AM

So what are the OTHER safe & reliable methods of "addressing scalability issue" without increasing the block size ?

Obviously. Read through this topic carefully, instead of just barking around like a rabid chihuahua, and you will find at least a few good ideas.
But they won't get a chance to really develop and built the infrastructure, as long as the transactions are free. So forcing transactions to stay free is probably the best strategy to kill these so needed innovations.

1. I don't really have time to go through the whole topic - sorry. So please tell me which of these propositions you think should replace the increase of block size.

2. Transactions are supposed to be free - that is the foundation of Bitcoin. That is how Satoshi envisioned it. He also said very clearly that the block size limit is a temporary measure to protect the network from DDoS.

The way i see things is that you want do a hard fork and completely change the basics of Bitcoin instead of doing the thing that is natural and already designed by Satoshi - increasing the block size. And i think that is one hell of a dumb idea.

Why create a new untested solution when we already have a solution ?

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 05, 2013, 03:12:58 AM

So what are the OTHER safe & reliable methods of "addressing scalability issue" without increasing the block size ?

Obviously. Read through this topic carefully, instead of just barking around like a rabid chihuahua, and you will find at least a few good ideas.
But they won't get a chance to really develop and built the infrastructure, as long as the transactions are free. So forcing transactions to stay free is probably the best strategy to kill these so needed innovations; and I am old enough to suspect that it might not be a coincidence, but an agenda at work.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 05, 2013, 03:01:51 AM

While the community expects the dev team to solve the scalability problem, the lead developer just makes an announcement that he already made the decisions along with all the other important people from the community and they decided that instead of addressing the scalability issue, while there is still time, they are only going to make it worse, and they will do it as soon as possible.

Wait a moment.

So what are the OTHER safe & reliable methods of "addressing scalability issue" without increasing the block size ?

What are the other propositions ? And I mean ones that do not require re-writing whole protocol from scratch, by the way.

If you are criticizing this way, you need to provide **an alternative**.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: conv3rsion on June 04, 2013, 02:18:19 PM

You are an asshole. Gavin was offering a way for people who actually care about this issue to present the various arguments in a useful way AND giving a reason why he can't do it right now. It wasn't an excuse, it was Gavin being his usual pragmatic self.

I am an asshole, because Gavin, after being pointed out that his neutrality in the matter is at least questionable brought up an argument of his family member passing away, and I dared to call it silly?

Well, if such a behavior falls under a definition of being an asshole, then maybe I am one - whatever.
But it still doesn't change the fact, that in my opinion there is something seriously wrong with the development of this project.
While the community expects the dev team to solve the scalability problem, the lead developer just makes an announcement that he already made the decisions along with all the other important people from the community and they decided that instead of addressing the scalability issue, while there is still time, they are only going to make it worse, and they will do it as soon as possible. And before it happens, they are also going to lobby against implementing any alternative ways of addressing this issue... hell, they are going to pretend that it isn't even possible to solve it otherwise.

Thank you though for giving me the opportunity to present the various arguments, even though by your definition I obviously belong to the ones who don't care

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1006

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: Peter Todd on June 04, 2013, 07:55:30 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 07:35:00 AM

I actually was under the impression that we are libertarians here and we should push for any solution that decreases centralization.

No block size limit = free market decides the proper size

You mean the 3 people controlling the pools that have the majority of hashing power control the blocksize.

Quote from: dinker on July 06, 2011, 06:10:30 PM

Exactly like these 3 people?
So 3 people have been controlling the block size ever since the 1MB limit was introduced. Now it all becomes clear!

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:49:31 PM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:43:26 PM

Do you like it ?

man i really don't care about your trolling.

This has nothing to do with trolling.
I am making a pure ad hominem argument that you are a very impolite person and also an imbecile with stupid arguments so nobody should listen to anything you have to say.
Still on topic.

Quote from: paraipan on June 04, 2013, 02:33:30 PM

@ShadowOfHarbringer please control your tone too, is obvious piotr_n wants to keep this thread on topic like you do.

Sorry for that, I usually lose my control when somebody is an über-asshole.

He deserved it anyway.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 04, 2013, 12:59:30 PM

(...)
I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

By the way, my condolences.

paraipan

legendary

Activity: 924

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: 1pirata

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 04, 2013, 12:59:30 PM

...

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

Sorry for your loss Gavin. The most prudent course of action would be you leave development for a while and recover.

Quote from: caveden on June 04, 2013, 12:52:19 PM

Every point presented on this subject has already being addressed. Multiple times.

Point us in the right direction, don't be shy.

@ShadowOfHarbringer please control your tone too, is obvious piotr_n wants to keep this thread on topic like you do.

conv3rsion

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:31:42 PM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:29:04 PM

Now you are just being a rude son of a bitch (not a troll).

I would have been rude if I was lying to have someone really close to me died recently.
But since it really happened, and you feel sorry for Gavin, but not at all for me and my mom, then I can only tell you back: fuck you!
Still, the code does not care about who died and someone has to take the stake and develop it further in the right direction.

You are an asshole. Gavin was offering a way for people who actually care about this issue to present the various arguments in a useful way AND giving a reason why he can't do it right now. It wasn't an excuse, it was Gavin being his usual pragmatic self.

---------------------

Gavin my thoughts are with you and your family.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: justusranvier on June 04, 2013, 01:07:05 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 12:55:14 PM

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.

That is also a conflict of interests.

The only things I've ever been interested in are ways to allow scalability since that bothered me about Bitcoin within seconds of understanding the basics of the network and the design of it's decentralization.

'http://bakcoin.org' I abandoned, but it was envisioned to support 'best-of-breed' exchange currencies and thus, hopefully, Bitcoin.
'http://bitcoin-legacy.org' is arguably Bitcoin. (Oh, I need to make a slight correction there...done.)
'http://paracoin.org' is Bitcoin by design...until Bitcoin 'fails' at least.

I've never held any alternate crypto-currencies or had much interest in them since none that I know of focus on real scaling issues. I have given BTC to friend and encouraged them to knock themselves out playing with alternates in the hopes that some good ideas and code spring from them, but generally it's not worth my time to play with them.

The idea of a 'debt based' system which can move 'debt' to where it is needed is a powerful one and very interesting. But Ripple is is closed source and centralized from the get-go which is a non-starter for me. It's a completely opposite beast than Bitcoin (in my mind), but that is fine and actually a good thing.

Open Transactions seems to rock, and is exactly the class of solution I see as being the best hope for Bitcoin in any capacity where it has a realistic chance of being worth a shit (where 'worth' is not meant to be taken as in monetary terms.)

edit: url fix

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:43:26 PM

Do you like it ?

man i really don't care about your trolling.
really.
you might even write a poem for me, and trust me: I wont read it

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:37:55 PM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:33:33 PM

"Don't be silly" is simply not a proper way to reply to somebody whose a person in the family has recently died.

It is, if it was an answer to an argument/excuse on changing the bitcoin protocol.
I understand how broken you can be at such moments, but bringing it as an argument on whether we should increase a block size, or not... Please.

Hey, piotr_n, I have prepared something for you:

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:37:55 PM

My mother has died.

Don't be silly. She was a bitch anyway.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:37:55 PM

My sister has been raped by a gang of 40 men.

Raped ? Don't be silly, everybody knows she fucked everybody around. She liked it and she wanted it.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:37:55 PM

My dog was killed by my schizophrenic neighbour.

Don't be silly, I know your neighbour and he is a cool person ! I am sure that it was your dog that was mad.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:37:55 PM

Somebody burned my car at the night !

Don't be silly, that car was crap anyway.

Do you like it ?

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:33:33 PM

"Don't be silly" is simply not a proper way to reply to somebody whose a person in the family has recently died.

It is, if it was an answer to an argument/excuse on an arbitrary change of the bitcoin protocol.
I understand how broken you can be at such moments, but bringing it as an argument on whether we should increase a block size, or not... Please.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:31:42 PM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:29:04 PM

Now you are just being a rude son of a bitch (not a troll).

I would have been rude if I was lying to have someone really close to me died recently.
But since it really happened, and you feel sorry for Gavin, but not at all for me and my mom, then I can only tell you back: fuck you!
Still, the code does not care about who died and someone has to take the stake and develop it further in the right direction.

"Don't be silly" is simply not a proper way to reply to somebody whose a person in the family has recently died.

You must be a sick piece of bastard (or a psychopath) if you don't know that.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on June 04, 2013, 01:29:04 PM

Now you are just being a rude son of a bitch (not a troll).

I would have been rude if I was lying to have someone really close to me died recently.
But since it really happened, and you feel sorry for Gavin, but not at all for me and my mom, then I can only tell you back: fuck you!
Still, the code does not care about who died and someone has to take the stake and develop it further in the right direction.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 01:03:52 PM

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 04, 2013, 12:59:30 PM

I've been derailed the last week by a death in the family, and still need to finish up some payment protocol work.

Please, don't be silly.
I'm sorry for your lose, but should I be bringing the deaths in my family as well? I've surely had some recently, but it's just not an argument for a bitcoin development board.

Now you are just being a rude son of a bitch (not a troll).

Step down with your tone or GTFO, motherfucker. I will not be having a discussion with such a bastard.

And I mean, seriously - no trolling.

conv3rsion

sr. member

Activity: 310

Merit: 250

This thread is a complete rehash of months of debate. I can't wait until we can get past this issue. I truly hope that the efforts here http://utxo.tumblr.com/ are successful, because helping scalability means helping Bitcoin and this might the most important work in the history of the currency.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2053

Merit: 1356

aka tonikt

Quote from: justusranvier on June 04, 2013, 01:07:05 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 12:55:14 PM

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.

That is also a conflict of interests.

Well, feel free to disclose your motives.
I've already stated it that I own some mining shares, so I have an obvious incentive to keep the limit on.
Though, which you probably won't believe, my main motivation comes from a sincere care about this fine project and its future, and not from the few extra percent benefits of my mining operations.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1013

Quote from: piotr_n on June 04, 2013, 12:55:14 PM

Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?

If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.

That is also a conflict of interests.

Topic: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE - page 6. (Read 13023 times)