Topic: Small blocks, middle blocks or big blocks? (Read 1160 times)

you do realise for longer than you have even been a forum member i have been mentioning ways to fit more tx per block without needing to jump to "big blocks" ('big blocks' refers to not progressive small adjustments but huge leaps such as the fud propaganda of 'gigabytes by midnight')

there are many ways to gain more transaction throughput, things such as
reduce the sigops:- reduces ability to fill a block with just a handfull of transactions and helps relay speeds
less wishy washy bloated tx formats
a fee structure that changes people habits
progressive buffer growth, not leaps

also it was core with their mandatory bilateral split (a buzzword gmax uses) that was organised and struck first.. should you care to read some code and blockdata(like i told you several times in many topics). so dont go now trying to meander the conversation into bitcoin cash social drama and again try to concentrate on learning about bitcoin.

really go try it.
i find it funny how either you are ignorant to research things told to you sveral times before, or how arrogant you are to keep mentioning things you dont know about but just repeat just to cause social drama to deflect and meander the topic away from actual topic discussion.

now do not reply to me. spend time learning about bitcoin and lets have the next reply you make concern bitcoin. not social drama. if you end up replying to me because you dont like what i have said. press the ignore button instead. then go use the spare time to learn about bitcoin

That's very ironic that you're the person between the three of us who has the nerve to say that, because we try to learn, and you spread the big blocker propaganda, and lies.

Do you deny it?



That's your "bilateral split", isn't it?

doomad + windfury

YAWN
now go learn about bitcoin.

meanwhile when core now are "THE REPO", "THE REFERENCE", "THE CORE" but when a dev says they can code a version. but then doesnt even bother. thus not even getting the other devs to ACK or nACK.. or even let the community get a chance to download. you cant then try pulling out stats that XXX are against it. especially when its not even all xxx actually code. majority are just document translators and grammar checkers

but 2 years later the same limited devs do write a version for 1mbsegwit. suddenly Mr doomad declares that its what the team wanted and what the community wanted.. even though the flip flops and stats and data show the community didnt want it and it only got activated due to apartheid tricks by a limited amount of people

anyway, doomad. go learn about bitcoin and if you dont like my comments this forum has an ignore button
the ignore button should be your friend because its obvious how ignorant you are about bitcoin and the community. as all you care about is core. the funniest part is that your social drama pokes against me just echo into "coz franky said" yet you dont realise that there are many many others that are not core loyalists. you have become so obsessed and so narrow minded that you actually think that i am a single point of attack. (hilarious)

so again for the multiple time on many topics. stop wasting your life on "things franky said" and start learning about bitcoin, start caring about bitcoin and not just core. actually take a break, relax, catch your breath and spend some time looking at the wider world and understand that "franky" is not a threat to you. then. once that has sunk in spend some more time learning about actual bitcoin

You are the drama.  Bitcoin Core has 624 contributors.  5 of them didn't do what they said they were going to do, so you're having a hissyfit about how the entire dev team supposedly reneged on an agreement they never actually made.  To put that into context, 0.8% of Bitcoin Core "backed out".  99.2% of Bitcoin Core contributors never made that commitment to 2mb+SegWit.  Those 99.2% don't owe you a thing, so stop being a petulant, entitled crybaby. 

But when presented with real facts, you turn around, follow another course, and use social drama and propaganda to change the conversation. When presented with the real historical account of something, and how it happened, you turn around, follow another course, and shout "social drama". Haha.

if you cared to do your research you would se it was them same 5 devs who pretended to be incompetent to not be able to do a 2mb+segwit days after signing, who later in 2017were the ones that caused the controversy in august 2017

plus the reason i dont want to spoonfeed you is because you have shown no talent, no interest in learning about bitcoin. so i wont waste my time on you. however, for other topics and other instances i have helped out others.
but as soon as they start derailing both topics and their own attitudes. i then give up helping them out and just tell them to do thir own research.

oh and by the way this forum has a search, github has a search, if you actually search for things related to bitcoin and not "franky" then you will get better results.
so try to learn about bitcoin and NOT ABOUT SOCIAL DRAMA

now go put your social drama crap aside and start learning about bitcoin.

example why i say DYOR
person A: mentions satoshi's whitepaper (something simple/subtle that anyone can research)
person B: goes on a social drama rant that A did not quote, explain and translate the whitepaper
person A: just tells person B to go research
person b: cries some more about how he wants A to explain things and to spoonfeed B
long story short. if your not interested in researching the whitepaper yourself, dont get involved with taking about it
if you cant stay uptodate with the currently available info. then take the time to update YOURSELF and dont expect others to coach you

And you wonder why no one listens to you.  Do you honestly expect that people have nothing better to do with their lives than verifying the thousands of posts you make?  Clearly you don't have a life, but other people do.  Call it spoonfeeding if you like, but search engines don't yield helpful results for "wtf is franky1 waffling about today?" and we're not mind-readers.

Yes, those 5 signatories do appear to have agreed to something they didn't deliver.  However, 5 signatories doth not a dev team maketh.  Other devs didn't seem particularly supportive of their efforts and you're normally the one screaming about how everyone has to agree (hint: they don't).  Just because 5 people said something would happen, it doesn't mean all the contributors to that project are bound by it.  Your gripe is with those 5 people.  Now call the waaaaambulance and move on with your life.

"drag it out of me"
seriously DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH
i dont need nor care for merits.
i know you love being spoonfed info. but i am not a spoon holder
do your own research
if somebody mentions something, even subtly. RESEARCH IT. dont turn it into some social drama of how you want them to spoonfeed you stuff.
if you cant learn about bitcoin its your failure to learn not someone elses failure to teach

Finally a substantiated post from franky1.  Hallelujah.  Honestly never thought I'd see the day.  Why couldn't you just do that the first time?  If I didn't have to drag it out of you, I might have even been tempted to merit you. 

So your assertion is that no code was ever made that conforms to this agreement?  Is that correct?  Because it should be emphasised that this agreement doesn't promise that a 2mb+SegWit hardfork would take place, merely that an implementation would be "available".  Are you absolutely certain such code does not exist?  Because if so, I will concede the point to you.

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff
end of 2015 luke JR and chums talked about segwit.
saying how he could do it all soft and without splits

 and then a roundtable agreement was made for 2mb+segwit

then within a short time the core devs started pulling out by pretending they were powerless and unable to code anything
but by the time summer 2017 came around the 1mb segwit activation was done via a controversial hard fork that split the network(facepalm)
SERIOUSLY TRY RESEARCHING THIS STUFF!!!

as it seems all you wanna do is social drama replies.
please try to learn a thing or two about bitcoin and not be so obsessed with social drama

That's not how it works.  You either provide evidence that proves the Bitcoin Core dev team expressed their commitment to 2mb+SegWit, or otherwise I state once again that you are a lying sack of human excrement.  You can't just make stuff up and then reply "research" when someone calls you out on it (well... you can, obviously, because that's what you do in nearly every topic you post in, but it only makes it obvious that you're trolling).

doomad
now your meandering further off topic as usual by questioning small subtle points to try moving the conversation into nonsense. but to get to your point should you desire to do some research it was about the 2015 2mb+segwit (not the 2017 NYA)
early 2016 core devs pulled out of the 2mb+segwit agreement. but then went on and pulled their tricks to get 1mb segwit activated.

you may find out about it should you research
Hint: luke Jr

What the hell are you even on about?  No doubt you're deliberately taking something out of context again, so if you could provide a direct quote from a Core dev regarding whatever it is you're spouting nonsense about, we can debunk it more efficiently.

If you're talking about the New York Agreement, I think you'll find you have to commit to something first before you can "back out" of it.  I know such concepts might be difficult for you to grasp while you still entertain the misguided notion that devs have to do what you want them to.   

heres a funny thing. the main majority consensus of late 2015 was a 2mb legacy+segwit..
then core backed out with excuses that the devs that signed the agreement were not in power to code it (facepalm)
(they then suddenly gained power to code their 3 trick process to activate 1mb segwit)
which allows for 4mb.
again 4mb is dialup amount.(56kbit/s=4.2mbyte/10min) we are not pre-millenial. we are at fibre-5g era which is 100x+ dial up standard
cell phones can validate transactions, so thinking a desktop has problems is another reddit rhetoric trying to make people think we are back in the windows 98 era.
the whole need to stick to 1mb is like saying floppydisks are the limit of portable media

so all your 'big blocker' echo's is the reddit rhetoric of pre2015 and not the reality of what the community was compromising to in 2015-2017. also there is progressive block growth, not simply the big leap which your echoed buzzword keeps implying

shouting out buzzwords from 4 years ago shows you have not researched much and are just repeating old propaganda spoonfed to you. and this is why i keep telling you to do some actual research independently to avoid you falling for the echo's of spoonfed propaganda.. but months of your repetition shows that you have no interest in improving your knowledge.

im starting to think your not on this forum to learn, but to just have a reason to make posts to earn some footnote campaign income and probably a bit of ln sponsorship income by the way you promote something you dont understand nor seemed to have used personally

Why don't you like it, it's only a word to describe people who like big blocks.


Bandwidth is limited, and not all nodes can be on fast connections all the time. That's reality. Full nodes have to validate the transactions against the UTXO-set to be sure that all the information is correct before it sends it to another node, which will do the process again, and it takes time. Then there are the blocks, which are to be validated the same as transactions.

Do you believe that Bitcoin Cash will work as well as Bitcoin if its blocks are constantly full?

As if you were in any position to judge.   

If I ever hear you saying something that sounds like it might be an improvement to Bitcoin, I'll let you know.  But it's safe to say most of your ideas are absolutely dismal and would make Bitcoin WORSE, not better.  But keep blaming one dev team for the fact that most of your suggestions are totally unworkable and barely anyone would support them even in the unlikely event someone took the time to code the rare few that aren't impossible.

firstly many months of your flip flops have shown you dont even know the difference between a soft and hard fork

secondly. soft or hard what i oppose is controversial activations done with mandated/biased code that bypasses consensus

but tell me again how you want to improve BITCOIN... oh wait, your mantra is just to defend CORE

Because you hate softforks and (if you could code) would deliberately code it in a way that wasn't backwards-compatible.  That's how a) and d) can both be valid.  But I wouldn't expect someone with your limited comprehension to grasp that.

your reply is just personal stuff.. by the way.. d) and a) .. how can i not have code for A but then have code for D...
flip/flop? .. let that be your head scratching conundrum for the day

also if you knew what consensus is. then you would know 'my code'(active) is not incompatible. also 'my code'(proposals)  for half the things i want to implement is not active. because consensus has not activated it. which is where you are mis understanding alot of things.
hint: proposed vs active (2 separate things)
also i have not publicly released 'my code' proposals for multiple reasons. but your narrowminded narrative that im a minority or just a single person and everyone else is a core loyalist, is your failing.

"big blockers" typical echo chamber buzzword from a certain group. if you realised that increasing the transaction throughput can be alot more nuanced than just 'big blocks'. then you would understand more about methods of scaling bitcoin without reverting to the standard claptrap rhetoric of the echo chamber you subscribe to that just wants to propaganda one method

you dont need hard for after hard fork to increase blocksize/transaction throughput. you may have learned this if you were not reading the standard echo chambers and using the standard buzzwords of a certain group. this is why i ave kept saying to do some independent research as you are showing all the signs of being in that propaganda group.

better bandwidth? we are not in dialup era..
56kbit=4.2mbyte/10min
block header plus tx data is way less than 4mb

better latency? (dictionary: delay before transfer)
the only latency issue is mainly being told several different dataset formats other nodes want: stripped, filtered, neutrino and others. a full node should just send out the real full data other full nodes need. having a bunch of nodes that dont archive full data and cant relay full data but still foolishly be classed as 'full nodes' is the thing that will cause more centralisation than anything.

having nodes that dont hold signatures. or only hold prunned data cuts down the amount of real full syncable data. having these nodes connecting to full nodes become leachers while not being part of the main relay operation of the network.
code CAN be made to identify and classify these leacher nodes better and ensure priority 'latency' operations and bandwidth is given to full nodes rather than the leacher nodes.
EG if your node can handle 100 connections then you can have a 80/20 split of full/leacher
EG if your node can handle 10 connections then you can have a 8/2 split of full/leacher

there are many many ways that are not just the 'gigabyte by midnight' rhetoric

its like the tx fee's code can be made to not just treat every tx to the same ~premium, but make spammers pay different than infrequent users. thus making people care/change habits and actually understand bitcoin more