Topic: Scaling of bitcoin. (Read 417 times)

yes, now, exactly BTC is swimming freely into the deepest sea floor.

what do you think about BTC now? Are you complaining? I think, the scale of BTC today gives us the opportunity to buy it.

This is quite possible, but it’s better not to do it with Bitcoin, but with stocks and futures. Most crypto exchanges are not well-established work, which increases the risks.

sorry folks for doomads topic invasion for his usual dev kiss ass dev defending meanders.

now back to the topic.
bitcoin for the last 3 years has not innovated in regards to scaling. devs have only cared about making bitcoin 'other network' compatible

if anyone wants to prove me wrong then its simple
show me a day where transactions broke the 7tx/s (600k tx a day) barrier that has existed since 2009

show me stats that are atleast say 1million a day which is like the 3tx/s under 1mb rule utility.. but spread out into the 4mb space(thus 12tx/s) that devs pretend is fully utilisable
(i know its not. but im just trying to prove a point.. im kind of being rhetorical with using a bit of reverse psychology)

even if under a fully open 4mb base block which was a 2014-15 proposal allowing upto 28tx/s
i am asking to show an easy 12tx/s day..(1mill a day) to prove 4mb utility of 3tx/s per mb (never gonna happen)
or even a 7tx/s+ day which means bitcoin has surpassed satoshis measure quoted in 2009-10

if anyone tries to pretend numbers dont exceed that amount because demand isnt there. i will instantly counter with mempool stats that mempools exceed 1mb because there is demand. i will also instantly counter that people had to wait more than one block because blocks are full
so under the understanding of full blocks and such and the 4mb promises of devs. we should be at over 7tx/s. i am not suggesting 28tx/s need to be proven. but atleast prove breaking passed the 600k tx a day barrier thats existed since 2009

those nodes are not full nodes (1037 flag nodes) so they didnt get a vote they were bypassed.

BCH forked off AFTER the core network mandate bip.
check the blockchain.
core devs mandated first then bch came after AS A RESULT
even you know this
(and dont meander about it wasnt core devs... luke JR was publicising and praising it. he is even still now proud of his efforts. he doesnt need you trying to say he wasnt involved he doesnt need you dismissing his efforts.. he is loud and proud of it)
even you posted that core supporters mandated bip was introduced in march and bch reacted months later knowing they would get thrown off.. they had NO CHOICE

but atleast your coming to the realisation that nodes were not counted because they were taken off the network
you have made one step forward. but you seem to lack reading the blockchain height to see core supporters mandated bip came first and bch came second. so go research that.
blockchain data doesnt lie

i dont endorse or am not part of EB. thats your foolish mindset.
there are many many many many many ways to scale bitcoin but because EB was the only one before the mandate even trying to oppose cores roadmap i thought its better than nothing. i to thought 2mb base+segwit(2016 version) was better than cores 1xsegwit. even segwit 2x(2017 version) was a better than nothing.
but again core didnt want that
the segwit2x(2017 version) was not even a proposal. it was a DCG.co endorsed subterfuge to get segwit1x activated and then backtrack the 2x element.


but again staying on topic:

As I continue to point out and you willfully ignore, you are talking about nodes running the /BTC1 client.  Those are the clients that were disconnected from the network due to concerns over replay protection.  BU have not been forked off.  XT have not been forked off.  TRB have not been forked off.  Classic have not been forked off.  BCH forked of their own volition, just like they announced they would months earlier.  BCH nodes don't count towards consensus on this chain, despite the fact you clearly wish they did.  Obviously some of the people that previously ran nodes on the BTC network made the decision to follow the BCH chain instead.  They chose that.  But you just want to pretend that they were all forced out.  As always, the reality is very different to what you portray.

It's worth pointing out that BTC1 also would have forked voluntarily if it meant they got the 2MB blocks they wanted.  I'd have followed that chain alongside this one and held both coins if that had happened.  But the main point is, you need to stop deliberately conflating BCH and BTC1 like a manipulative shitweasel.  It only makes you look even more dishonest than I already think you are.

Also, please tell us how Core faked the 90%+ hashrate that locked in SegWit.  Can't wait to hear what fantastical imaginary delusions you come up with in an attempt to explain that one away.  

Just accept that your REKT campaign is dead in the water, that you have barely any support for your "emergent consensus" lunacy and that BTC will increase on-chain scaling as and when users are ready to support that.  Just wait patiently if you want larger blocks.  Why is that so hard for you?  You might be ready, but others are not.  You can't force other nodes to accept larger blocks, just like they can't force you to validate SegWit transactions.  You run what you want to run, we'll run what we want to run (and you'll probably continue to cry that it's not fair for various illogical "reasons").

---

//EDIT:  So you went back and added more to your post to look appear as though you do actually want to discuss scaling instead of your broken interpretation of consensus.  How very convincing.   


I'm pretty sure the onus is on you to first prove that we were promised by a developer that the full 4mb would definitely be used.  Every time I saw a dev comment on this matter, they were quite clear that the full 4mb would be highly improbable and that the average would definitely be less than that in practice.

i have been talking about scaling. you have been talking about your love and loyalty to core devs
but to address your meanders, just to put you to bed, yet again

nodes were thrown off the network in august to FAKE count consensus
other nodes were told they didnt need to upgrade to vote in favour of segwit because core bypassed them. they were not counted.
core got their FAKE95% not by doing true consensus.
the amount of nodes that were actually fully segwit ready was not even 50%

you know this.
it has been discussed repeatedly in many topics.. which you butt in to meander off topic by poking the bear simply because i mention core in negative light as part of the topic
you trying to bring it up again as if you are bringing up fresh info. is your flaw.
do i really need to suggest to you to do some research

Consensus is whatever those securing the network decide it is.  Not you.  90%+ of the network hashrate and thousands of nodes reached consensus and decided it was SegWit.  SegWit has helped with scaling (which is the topic, so please stop derailing the topic).



You're demanding that everyone has to agree before anyone can code anything
You're demanding that no one can code anything with a predetermined activation date
You're demanding that no one utilise softforks in their code
You're demanding that no users start any REKT campaigns
You're demanding that Core contributors shouldn't be allowed to propose new ideas because Core is just a reference client

Also, the topic is scaling, please stick to that.



If you can't stick to the topic, start a new thread.  I can point out the new topic button if you need assistance with that.

mr MEANDER off topic doomad.. this is the several topic where by you have tried to meandr the topic into social drama to defend a dev.. but you poked the bear. so ill bite


you have been told several times
core can code what they like. they can write what they like. but making mandated for the community to accept it or "fork off" is not what consensus is.
if they cant get a fair consensus vote they should go back to the drawing board and compromise thir ego's to make something the community would accept without having to use mandates and consensus bypasses.

EG if they stuck with the 2015 agreement of majority they would have got segwit activated by late 2016 without a split, and the rest of the community would have got a bigger base block.. but we both know thats not what the core roadmap wanted. so that didnt happen. instead core got things how they wanted due to the august '17 mandate because they knew the november '17 deadline was approaching and they only had 35% community vote. whn the mandate first become publicised

you have been told that several times now
plus i am not demanding anything. im pointing out the obvious
show me where i demand. show me code where i have made mandated proposals

you wont find any. but i can show you code by core devs that mandate and bypass consensus..
i already have. many times. again your forgetful because you want to pretend core are your kings and deserve to be the controllers of bitcoins code where the only route forward is a core roadmap

if you dont like what i have to say hit the ignore button. i also showed you where to find it many times

---

oh and if you think as a average joe that if you kiss enough dev's ass that you can make money on LN, sorry to burst your bubble but you wont.
the LN factories will make the money. and they will be run by the portfolio group of DCG.co
i say this as i find it strange that your not interested in the bitcoin network, but your always found defending devs that wish to scream "blockchains cant scale, LN is the future"
in the last 3 years the devs have no interest in scaling the bitcoin network. thir roadmap has been to make the network compatible with others to divert users away from the network. and only innovate smart contracts just to not make the tx/s even worse than 3tx's

---

so staying with the topic
if you think bitcoin has scaled then show me a single day where bitcoin has had over 600,000 tx for the day (7tx/s)
come on show me when blocks are full that there are more tx/s than numbers satoshi mentioned back in 2009-10 (7tx/s). show me the idea where devs pretend the 4mb is full utility space = 28tx/s (2.4mill tx a day)
come on show my their promises from 3 years ago

if you can show me how they have scaled bitcoin in the last 3 years. and i dont mean make bitcoin compatible to be bypassed when core deem fit and compatible with other non bitcoin networks to sway people away from bitcoin.
i actually mean scaling bitcoin.
show me stats of atleast 600,000tx a day and ill shut my mouth. come on. show me some stats
or are you just here to defend dev's ego

stats please not social drama and insults.. just stats.
if you only wish to reply with insults. save yourself some time. as your reply will just be void of any substance

It's not a flip flop, you dullard.  They can code anything, but it doesn't mean anything unless users agree with it and run it.  You're the one proposing the impossible where everyone has to agree on what they can code before they're "allowed" to code it.  Get a clue.  Describing what you advocate as "impractical" would be the understatement of the millennia.  In terms of the size of blocks and overall throughput, Bitcoin has exactly as much "scaling" (the size of blocks is arguably unrelated to scaling, but don't let that stop you) as its users currently desire.  That may change in future, so just wait patiently like a sane person.



And everyone can see your ongoing REKT campaign.  It's just less effective than its predecessors.



You can't even reach agreement on what a full node is.  You want to hold the untenable position that non-SegWit nodes are not full nodes but should still have a say in what consensus is.  I say you run a full node, you say you don't.  There is literally no reasoning with you.  Clearly you haven't been forked off the network yet, which is a real shame.  I wish it were that easy to get rid of you.  Again, if users didn't like the current rules, they would run different code.  Again, despite your inane protests, users are running Core's code, which means they agree with Core's scaling roadmap.  Or do you think they are all idiots who run code they hate?  You're like those door-to-door religious cranks who think people are so stupid that they couldn't find one of your churches if they wanted to convert to your batshit insane belief system.



You've been told many times that your interpretation of said data and history borders on the psychotic.  And that's when you're not just plain making shit up.  Try taking off the tinfoil hat and being less paranoid.  Your ideas for scaling (stop derailing the thread and stick to scaling, which is the actual topic) are terrible and hardly anyone agrees with them.  Go away with your EC crap.  We don't want it.

LN is not a bitcoin feature. its a separate network. for multiple different coins to use.
it does not scale bitcoin it simply makes people use something that is not the bitcoin network

here is the illusion- demythed
bitcoin is be your own bank.. so imagine we are the banks and the onchain network is the SWIFT network that takes 10 minutes to settle. but the swift banking network only manages at best 7tx/s and averages 3tx/s

now imagine LN(visa) come along. and say if you lock your balance up into out factories(vaults) you can use a visa network that also supports the euro, yuan, pound and other currencies..

now is this scaling the swift network or making less people want to use the swift network. think about the 3tx/s on the swift network. is it increasing beyond 7tx's.. is it really at 28tx's right now....... nope

instead the swift network is still around 3tx's even though blocks are 'full' and so people are just going to avoid wanting to return to the swift network. they will just let their funds remain lucked in visa vaults and just play around with visa payments and if they dont want to use visa no more eventually find the swift network still too expensive and slow and non-innovative to return to. thus they will atomic swap and withdraw other currencies on a better be your own bank network such as euros "faster payment"

The lightning network is still in works, and it just needs for it to become public. It will solve tons of bitcoin network related problems including low transaction times, high transaction fees, and scalability.

yes nothing stops that...(being compatible with active rules) until core want a change. then things like august 2017 occur where those that dont want core updates get thrown out the network


2009-2013 bitcoin was not a permissioned system. but now core is able to control the flow of upgrades and throw out anyone that wishes to dismiss core.

your the hypocrit that flip flops saying core cant do something because they are not allowed due to community concensus, then you flip flop to say they should be allowed because no one should tell them not to.

everyone seen the REKT campaigns. everyone seen the split in august 2017. you cant deny that.

now tell me what other FULL NODES are allowed to make proposals that have not been rekt or thrown off the network.
.. wait for it.. oh there are none. the only non core full nodes on the network are the ones that have to follow core rules and be compatible to cores roadmap if they want to stay on the network. not following cores rules when core want to upgrade does not stop core. but does throw core objectors off the network.
if any other team done what core supports done . guess what. core would rekt them off.

doomad you have been shown on many topics. i have told you to atleast look at the blockchain data and history but it seems after just days you try to poke your had into new conversations and pretend months of proving you wrong never happened and you just start your core defending and ass kissing core devs all over again.

you cant change history by insulting me. the blockchain daya is the blockchain data. it is immutable and anyone can check that forks occured. this forum although not immutable can show the rekt campaigns.

the nodes can show there has not been

If you are serious about your query, you may like to surf through this - https://scalingbitcoin.org/presentations

Except for the part where that's total drivel and several alternative clients have proposed different upgrades over the years.  You're running a non-Core client on the BTC network right now, so clearly it is "allowed".  There is nothing to stop anyone coding a brand new client which is compatible with the current consensus rules, so it runs on the BTC network, but proposes changes to the protocol rules at any desired activation threshold.  How can it be "not allowed" in a permissionless system?  You're the one who's trying to make it so that devs are "not allowed" to do stuff.  Stop being a hypocrite.

The scaling problem opens up opportunities for other altcoins to succeed. The lightning network will help bitcoin, otherwise people will just have to settle for alts instead

it is not about people thinking that, 90% of these cases are about people advertising their altcoins and they use buzzwords such as scaling, centralized, outdated technology,.... for it while most of their beloved altcoins are exact copies of bitcoin!!!


it is only true about 1% of altcoins such as Litecoin and IOTA. the rest of them such as BCH, XRP, DASH, ETH, ... and thousands of others are created to be pumped and dumped and they pretend they have created the coin because of what you said.

there have been many examples. but just imagine a community of 1000 plus developers making the best of bitcoin. rather than diluting things down into dozens of altcoins (im not talking about script kiddy forks/copy and paste coins)

I'm not going to agree nor disagree with you on your statement about bitcoin-core proposals as I'm still quite undecided, but this is definitely not most of the time the reason why altcoins are being created. Most(probably 90%+? just a guess) of altcoins are made because of different purposes("smart contracts" and stuff) and different overall structure(mostly PoS).  Probably only BCH and BSV could fall under "proposals not being allowed" you're referring to.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Your question is not clear. Kindly explain what you need to know about bitcoin. Bitcoin does not swim but it is being mined by nodes for a fee by the miners. That is why bitcoin running blockchain passes through a series of confirmation before reaching the final wallet. This process is measured by scalability which is how fast was the confirmation until its final destination is reached.

altcoins are created because teams that are not core are not being allowed to add their proposals for upgrades to bitcoins network because they dont fit cores roadmap

what should have happened was teams allowed to run their nodes on the bitcoin network, make their proposals and if a consensus is formed, then the network upgrades to the new features..
if there is no consensus. then so be it, back to the drawing board and find a new community acceptable feature

 but no, any non-core proposals end up in rekt campaigns or get challenged to f**k off so that core can remain the dominant power where by core even get to have their devs and friends make mandated rules that coerce and bypass consensus to ensure core rules do get activated. even if it means f**king off opposers by splitting the network to fake a consensus count in cores favour