Topic: Refuting the 5 arguments of 1mb supporters (Read 1164 times)

Finally a guy that got it right, we dont need btc to go sky high yet, we need to make it usefull.

Blockstream is trying to solve it while you're falling for the nonsense proposed by Bitcoin Classic. Let's look at how badly Bitcoin scales via the block size limit.
Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
Without off-chain solutions such as LN, Bitcoin doesn't have a future on a global scale. I'm not saying that we should never increase the block size. However, we should not be looking at it as the primary way of scaling Bitcoin.

We're already reaching problems with Moore's law (which is almost dead); HDD capacity is begging to stagnate, the average internet speed grows in small percentages per year.

They need to do something. Its already too slow and the block chain is way too big.

A 7tps system will not be popular so the total value of bitcoin will not increase. It will reduce if we cannot increase it to 14, 100 tps in the future.

Hey, here's a crazy newsflash - not very many people use Bitcoin. If twenty million people want in it suddenly becomes a whole load less appealing as fees spiral to infinity and transactions take forever. Most first time users will not give it a second chance in that scenario.

You keep propagating the myth that fees are a panacea for scalability.
A 7tps system will never be a 100tps or a 1000tps system no matter
what you do with the fee structure.

How is 1MB limiting adoption? why do I keep reading about this nonsense? If you pay the fee it works as intended. If you raise blocksize to 2MB right now you are lossing a node cause I cant keep up with the amount of gigabites the block size is going to take on my hardware.

i was talking about farms not pools, but i was not arguing about the fact that they own 60%, i don't find that centralization

i was just trying to destroy the whole argmument, of bitcoin going to zero for no real reason, i firmly convinced that big farms right now are involved in price manipulation, to allow margin on their future profit against the halving

try not to tar all miners with the same brush, by suggesting different companies should to be considered as 1 entity based solely on the country.... is slight racism.
and by the way antpool is in iceland, bitfury is international.. the only 2 big names purely/majorly in china are BTCC and f2pool which amount to about 35%.

but even so.. why does a country so diverse as 1.3billion people with differing views and independent opinions be deemed as an attempt to collude?
was there any crying when 80% of the hashrate was in america a few years back?

i think throwing miners into one box based solely on location, without evidence of actual collusion.. is trying to mis-represent things

how why? isn't it obvious? chinese farm run 60%+ of the network, do you think they will let their 500 peta of hash worth nothing in the case the value will remain the same and the halving will kill their profit?

it's a business for them, they will keep it alive forever, because it is damn profitable for them

This is probably the most important issue. The general people don't care at all about block size limits, they just want something they can easily use and trust.

Trust in the system won't happen if different camps remain fighting over technical details.

with a correct pump by miners the value of bitcoin can easily grow in the range of 1k-10k without any single increase in the adoption

that's why miners do not care much about the limit, but to reach the real adoptino in the end they will adopt the new limit, maybe if many other citizen in chinas begin to embrace bitcoin

it will happen.. either by people sick of segwit bait and switch.. or finally giving into segwit bait and switch

As much as people want to increase that Bitcoin blocksize limit, it is just never going to happen. Deal with it.

firstly it said "likely long term".. as the preferential... "possible forever" as the worse case scenario...
so the assumption is long term...

secondly
"to become a large settlement network similar between banks" .. emphasis on 'similar'
its not saying banks will use bitcoin. its not saying anything close to that.
but if things are not sorted. then the LN network channels set up but retailers and exchanges to handle offchain transactions will be the institutions that finally push the transactions onto the blockchain when they close the channel.
so the MAJORITY of transactions would be done by retailers/exchanges signing transactions to settle customer funds.
just like how banks do batch processing of transfers on behalf of the customer

i do love how you cherry pick words to debunk everyone thats not segwit happy..
it may actually be benefit to you to instead of being hostile to people who are not ready for segwit. to instead of attacking them and call them loonies.. to learn how segwit actually performs and TEACH them the fundementals.
without pretending you know it all but secretly run to IRC, or say you wont learn unless someone pays you.

because it seems more and more obvious that you need to learn segwit along with the rest of the community

the best way to get onboard it to be helpful.. not to carry a whip and shout get on board or STFU. so its in your benefit to learn the pro's and cons and change your mindset from a debunker to someone that can actually help..

no where in your posts do you have any "technical arguments" either. so please stop all the hate, then people will stop hating you

I aboslutely agree with you.
Just rasing the limit to 2MB will not make the average people rushing into Bitcoin.That's totally wrong to believe this way.
I believe crypto currencies will stay as a niche for at least the next 5-10 years. And to be honest I would be totally fine with that as we have hopefully enough time to develop the network properly.
Just have a look how long it took the internet to really take off.Bitcoin and crypto currencies might be a bit faster, but not much imo.

I dont think its the average user that we need to worry about right now, The blocksize debate is a worry for all of the current community. I for one dont have full faith in bitcoin until this is sorted. A lot opf people im sure are on the fence untill this issue is sorted out correctly.

Indeed, they will not. But on the other side, as long as this question remains unsolved, bitcoin appears very unstable from the outside, and this is prohibiting people from starting to use it.

The average user won't will start using Bitcoin just because you said "hey, come on, I made some space just for you!".
If they didn't come yet, it's not increasing by only 1MB that will convince people to use. The mass adoption won't happen so soon.

Bitcoin will not stay at 1 MB. But it needs to move to 2MB or higher quickly to accommodate more adoption/usage.