Topic: [POLL] Is bigger block capacity still a taboo? - page 7. (Read 1816 times)

That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks.

Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin.

Yeah, and they why should I care about that?

Do I have to bring again the graph with the spike in doge and ltc txs every single time fee in Bitcoin spike?

Then you should start saying that to everyone on this board who suggests using dogecoin instead of Bitcoin for small purchases, and there is a ton of them trust me, you'll be done by the time the mempool is empty. And if you don't believe it:

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge.html#6m
This happens every single time Bitcoin fees spike, thousands move to doge!
Is LTC also laughable, or does it simply work?

Common this is so 640k RAM will be enough for everyone is getting old!
People torrent TB of data every day on their home computers and we're scared of 1TB of storage over a year for a thing that is supposed to threaten a trillion fiat-based economy. Seriously? Latency, data transfer, FML, you have tens of thousands of ....models.....live streaming in 4k but somehow it's magically impossible to push 10MB in 10 fucking minutes to every single hole in this world.

But Bitcoin is going to replace banks while serving 600k customers a day!  

And furthermore, when some other coins manage to do the impossible, it's laughable! We're going to colonize Mars in 2240 and while beaming in one split second an entire cargo from planet to planet some will still say more than 4MB in 10 minutes it's technically impossible!

I vote in favour of smaller block sizes because:

Bitcoin was created to be accessible to everyone. Thus, running a miner and running a node must be cheap hardware-wise. Don't underestimate the power of nodes for the Bitcoin networks. It's not just the miners. Increasing the block size will require more disk space. More disk space require more money. 20% of the world hold approximately 80% of the global wealth, so requiring more money isn't really fair after all

You'll have to walk me through on this calculation.

You must have misinterpreted me again. Spammers don't care what other people are paying in fees. They only care if their spamming can pass as much cheaply as possible. If block size is 100 MB, then, besides the expectation that it'll always be full, you should expect that it'll be mostly consisted of data junk like Ordinals.

If everyone doesn't give a damn about that, how come everyone stays on 4 MB block size network and doesn't move to BSV?

After reading most of the posts, I'm sticking to my views, it's Taboo if by increasing the blocksize to avoid network congestion the individual miners are getting eliminated from the Network, Increasing Blocksize can be a potential solution for Bitcoin but it is inefficient, because with this solution there will be another mess about the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin.

The proposal accepted is open if increasing the blocksize individual miner's power is not affected because we don't want our node to be controlled by only large entities. Network congestion can be a problem but having a solution risking the entire nature of the network is a big mess. Simply avoid moving coins in network congestion in such scenarios until we have a better solution to scaling rather than increasing the block size only.

No, you misinterpreted me. All I'm saying is that even with 10 MB, you will still sooner or later run out of block space, and fee market will arise. The difference is that you will have traded a percentage of the expenses of the user for the risk to split the network in half, and that there will be greater incentive to use it as a cloud storage.

I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.

To have the same current fees on Bitcoin but with 100 MB you would need spammer to pay at least 29 000 BTC

Every fucking day! Does it sound to you like something spammers would be able to do?

Me and I'm sure everyone around doesn't give a damn if spammers fill blocks with 1sat/byte, what matters is that they are not forcing me to pay 100sat/b!

2013 called, 5 pools hold 90% of the hashrate nowadays! 

I have pointed out that your analogy with the roads isn't accurate. If we double the roads, it doesn't mean the cars will double. But if the block size limit is 10 MB, then you should expect it to be full. If the block size is 100 MB, same. And same with 1 GB. If you take a look into BSV, they save entire movies. That is a verification nightmare, kills off the competition for small mining pools, and turns the currency into a shitcoin.

kills off the competition for small mining pools,

Again you're making the same mistake, by saying that if a shitcoin doesn't have the needed popularity for 10MB capacity Bitcoin should either.

Has it ever crossed your mind that there is much less activity in both Dogecoin and Litecoin?

What's your opinion about the blockchain trilemma? Is it BS?

You do realize that Windows is a far more popular desktop OS (compared to Linux) due to the fact it offers backwards compatibility with multi-decade old apps (like 32-bit apps from the 90s), right?

its also worth noting that CORE stop supporting windows versions when windows stop supporting their old versions
windows 7 bbecame unsupported in 2020 so windows 8 is min standard core devs find viable for bitcoin now
windows 8 was first released in 2012. and 3TB hard drives in 2012 were only $150 back then.

It is laughable to pretend that the same levels of security and decentralization exist in BSV, Solana, etc. If other coins "manage to do the impossible", how come they are still shitcoins?

What's your opinion about the blockchain trilemma? Is it BS?

Then you should start saying that to everyone on this board who suggests using dogecoin instead of Bitcoin for small purchases, and there is a ton of them trust me, you'll be done by the time the mempool is empty. And if you don't believe it:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge.html#6m
This happens every single time Bitcoin fees spike, thousands move to doge!
Is LTC also laughable, or does it simply work ?

Common this is so 640k RAM will be enough for everyone is getting old!
People torrent TB of data every day on their home computers and we're scared of 1TB of storage over a year for a thing that is supposed to threaten a trillion fiat-based economy. Seriously? Latency, data transfer, FML, you have tens of thousands of ....models.....live streaming in 4k but somehow it's magically impossible to push 10MB in 10 fucking minutes to every single hole in this world.
But Bitcoin is going to replace banks while serving 600k customers a day!  

And furthermore, when some other coins manage to do the impossible, it's laughable! We're going to colonize Mars in 2240 and while beaming in one split second an entire cargo from planet to planet some will still say more than 4MB in 10 minutes it's technically impossible!


Weird..
Block 817,119 was mined at 04:44:31
817,118 at 04:43:10,
817,117 at 04:42:19
3 blocks in 2 minutes, how was that possible if 1MB blocks over 60 seconds is such a danger?

Oh, maybe a one in a year event, let's go just 30 blocks further over last night:
817,089   2023-11-16 23:49:47
817,088   2023-11-16 23:47:59
817,087   2023-11-16 23:47:34

Did I miss the news on the blockchain breaking down and bitcoin becoming unusable last night when those 3 blocks in under 90 seconds happened?

We constantly mine blocks under 60 seconds from each other for years by the thousands and there has been no problem whatsoever, how could one even think this would be a threat?

Has it ever crossed your mind that there is much less activity in both Dogecoin and Litecoin? Have you considered the fact that these are pretty much prone to the same problem?

Then you should start saying that to everyone on this board who suggests using dogecoin instead of Bitcoin for small purchases

And furthermore, when some other coins manage to do the impossible, it's laughable!

Weird..
Block 817,119 was mined at 04:44:31
817,118 at 04:43:10,
817,117 at 04:42:19
3 blocks in 2 minutes, how was that possible if 1MB blocks over 60 seconds is such a danger?

Oh, maybe a one in a year event, let's go just 30 blocks further over last night:
817,089   2023-11-16 23:49:47
817,088   2023-11-16 23:47:59
817,087   2023-11-16 23:47:34

Did I miss the news on the blockchain breaking down and bitcoin becoming unusable last night when those 3 blocks in under 90 seconds happened?

We constantly mine blocks under 60 seconds from each other for years by the thousands and there has been no problem whatsoever, how could one even think this would be a threat?