Topic: [POLL] Is bigger block capacity still a taboo? - page 6. (Read 1816 times)

I think I've gone wrong somewhere while expressing it what I meant by this was it will directly increase the storage required by the minner to download the entire blockchain, and it will require a higher network bandwidth. So if the minner is not reading the entire block data still it's keeping a copy of the full data if the computation resources are not increasing but the network & storage resources are.

I was generally expressing my view on it and somehow mixed the nodes & minner at the same time. Anyway, there are some concerns for both miners and Nodes as well.

Satoshi was not a god, he has made a lot of weird decisions when implementing Bitcoin. Unless he has explicitly expressed his intentions for a decision you can not make such conclusions like the one you just made here.

In this case if I had to guess I'd say there may be two reasons for this decision:
1- Scalability of the code.
As a developer, specially when you are creating a consensus critical code for a decentralized system, it is easier to have an functionality and never use it than not having it and wanting to add it in the future. Introduction of other functionality like interpretation of SegWit outputs, adding OP_SUCCESSx, etc. are doing exactly that.

2. Translating DER lengths.
I think this is the most possible reason. Since Satoshi was aware of DER encoding (used for signatures) and DER lengths have a similar approach to encoding data lengths and also support very large values, Satoshi might have adopted the same approach and implemented as big a size as he could.
BTW same approach is used to encode VarInt (used for script lengths) which is another way of encoding lengths some of which can never be used in Bitcoin but they can encode extremely large values nonetheless.

Otherwise I doubt that Satoshi ever intended to let anyone push 4+ GB data to the stack that only supports pushing data that is no bigger than 520 bytes.

It has definitely grown but considering how fee spikes have never been severe or long lasting without spam attacks we can say with a high degree of certainty that the adoption has not yet surpassed the capacity.

windfury
none of your replies are about REAL data, code, opcodes, limits.
none of your replies are about REAL maths related to the data/limits
none of your replies are even about technology limitations IN REALITY

try for once to make an ontopic reply that show some thinking about the subject, outside of idolising certain people and insulting others.

when even your idol god devs say nodes can handle the creating, signing, relaying co-signing and relaying again and then verifying "a million payments a second" pre confirm.. it shows nodes have no issues with just a few thousand transactions. especially if mempools of nods can verify and maintain 300mb-500mb pre confirm  transactions without blowing up

when 4mb blocks are 6kb/s internet speed
when 10mb blocks(your groups suggestion) are 15kb/s internet speed
when 100mb blocks(your groups exaggeration) are 150kb/s internet speed

so please tell me the real defined reason your against it... apart from dev god cult following and wanting to appease your mentor

You're right, it's not my opinion, BUT in my personal opinion, I agree with the fact that the Core Developers have made the design decisions that value maintaining decentralization and security for the network MORE than increasing the transaction througput per block.

I know you're gaslighting everyone into believing I am wrong, and therefore you are right. BUT OK, they either DYOR and learn the truth, OR they listen to you and learn the truth the HARD WAY like I did.

you then double down by using nonsense exaggerations, exaggerations that are not even original or well thought out

there are 8 billion people on the entire planet. and not all of them use one currency..
but lets say they did.. for "trillions of transactions" requires each person to buy 12 items a days SEPARATELY for one trillion.. you used plural so multiply it by your magic plural amount you have in your head..

but becasue not everyone uses one currency naturally, lets take yours
250m mature people(toddlers dont shop for themselves) using the dollar. they do not even do 3 billion transactions per day

so stop with the exaggeration that one currency needs to do trillions.. let alone billions of transactions a day

you training of a discussion of reasonable adjustments at regular periods vs your stupid training of pretending the argument is about "gigabytes by next year" huge leaps, make you look foolish

get away from your training officer(forum-daddy) and think for yourself. he is not helping you
try to use actual data, real statistics, math and logic.. not some story some troll you call daddy tells you