Topic: So they want to hardfork Bitcoin - page 2. (Read 3318 times)
Bullish news for Litecoin
Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
calm down it's for testing only, and only the longest blockchain count, this is why a strong miner support is good , otherwise anyone can just run his own chain and fork bitcoin
By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-mp-is-your-god-271711
Bitcoin: getting the worst scumbags on the planet together since 2010.
By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-mp-is-your-god-271711
Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
trollogic:
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too small!
..time passes, block size increases...
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too big!
By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.
More like egomaniac. He's using this issue to try and draw attention to himself. The block limits were put there to prevent spam as a short term bandaid. There's obviously a problem with making block sizes too large, but it would also require an enormous Bitcoin economy to make it a problem, or...lots of people spamming the chain with gambling site nonsense. As long as you can prevent spam, increasing the upper limit isn't that big of a deal.
I guess it comes down to an issue of, would you rather have fractional reserve bitcoin where everything is off-chain, or non-fractional reserve where everything is on-chain with more bloat. Some people might ask, if you're doing everything off-chain, then how is it beneficial over the systems we already have? There's clearly some point there since the Keynesians could still be running wild in an off-chain system.
DDes are increasing the block size upper limit, not the minimum size. Pools can continue mining 200k blocks as they do now. IMO, it is not a major concern.
Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
trollogic:
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too small!
..time passes, block size increases...
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too big!
No. Will fail because seven transactions per second is laughable for a real currency. Will fail because the alternative is hardfork & blockchain bloat.
Why does such trivial shit need to be explained?
Yes the cognitive dissonance of being sure that you are right that nothing will usurp your real money. That you worked so hard for, that you wholly believe to be the one true money. The absolutely overwhelming terror of potentially being wrong. Continuing to see daily evidence that shows everything you believe in may be a lie. Desperately seeking ways to discredit the alternatives. Cognitive dissonance is indeed a bitch.
The real truth is it could go either way. I am comfortable with whatever the outcome. I'm not wed to bitcoins colossal success or its utter failure, or anything in between. You both seem to be trapped in a corner of your own making. Fortunately for both of you, you have the chance to escape! All you need to do is not change any of your real money for bitcoin and to assure your continued happiness, delete your accounts and never visit this forum again.
If you carry on hanging round here, reminding yourself of the alternative, you'll just make yourself more and more depressed. Do yourselves a favour end the suffering.
By the way That Mircea Popescu dude is a schizo clown.
A greedy sociopath who is gonna see his holdings inBTCeanie BTCabies bitcoin suddenly vanish when this thing finally dies.
Considering we are talking about bitcoin, I'd say it's appropriate.
It's a circus.
A greedy sociopath who is gonna see his holdings in
Considering we are talking about bitcoin, I'd say it's appropriate.
It's a circus.
Oh, stop. Read Gavin's actual post: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html
In the comments he notes that current thinking is to propose that blocksize doubles every 2 years for the next 20 years. Moore's law (compute power) and Nielsen's law (bandwidth) should outrun it, so cheap/home machines in the future will be MORE able to process bitcoin blocks than they are now.
Also, Satoshi intended for the blocksize to be raised, for those of you who consider the ethos of the early days to be inviolate:
In the comments he notes that current thinking is to propose that blocksize doubles every 2 years for the next 20 years. Moore's law (compute power) and Nielsen's law (bandwidth) should outrun it, so cheap/home machines in the future will be MORE able to process bitcoin blocks than they are now.
Also, Satoshi intended for the blocksize to be raised, for those of you who consider the ethos of the early days to be inviolate:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
These are the assumptions some people have problems with.
The thing is, people have been predicting the end of Moore's law since at least the mid-1980s, always "within 3-5 years". Eventually they will be right, but there is a long way to go.
There were similar predictions about the max speed a modem could do over POTS, until people got over 300 baud, then 9600...
Oh, stop. Read Gavin's actual post: http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/looking-before-scaling-up-leap.html
In the comments he notes that current thinking is to propose that blocksize doubles every 2 years for the next 20 years. Moore's law (compute power) and Nielsen's law (bandwidth) should outrun it, so cheap/home machines in the future will be MORE able to process bitcoin blocks than they are now.
Also, Satoshi intended for the blocksize to be raised, for those of you who consider the ethos of the early days to be inviolate:
In the comments he notes that current thinking is to propose that blocksize doubles every 2 years for the next 20 years. Moore's law (compute power) and Nielsen's law (bandwidth) should outrun it, so cheap/home machines in the future will be MORE able to process bitcoin blocks than they are now.
Also, Satoshi intended for the blocksize to be raised, for those of you who consider the ethos of the early days to be inviolate:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
These are the assumptions some people have problems with.
That's stupid idea, it's almost impossible to do an hard fork that will make 51%+ move to it.
Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
trollogic:
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too small!
..time passes, block size increases...
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too big!
No. Will fail because seven transactions per second is laughable for a real currency. Will fail because the alternative is hardfork & blockchain bloat.
Why does such trivial shit need to be explained?
Doesn't surprise me, as based on historical transaction sizes Bitcoin can't even handle 5 transactions/sec.
The dumb part about it, after over a year of time from where the issue became apparent, this is the laziest and most unimaginative solution possible. If there is a hardfork anyway there could be done something smarter about it, like that variable block size proposal, or perhaps addressing the cause.
Every node storing every transaction forever is incredibly wasteful. Partial storage with parity would be one approach, colluding smaller transactions into larger one would be another, different kind of nodes or even changing the way the Blockchain stores transactions are all directions to research.
But that would require the will to innovate from the Bitcoin development team, not changing a few hardcoded values.
The dumb part about it, after over a year of time from where the issue became apparent, this is the laziest and most unimaginative solution possible. If there is a hardfork anyway there could be done something smarter about it, like that variable block size proposal, or perhaps addressing the cause.
Every node storing every transaction forever is incredibly wasteful. Partial storage with parity would be one approach, colluding smaller transactions into larger one would be another, different kind of nodes or even changing the way the Blockchain stores transactions are all directions to research.
But that would require the will to innovate from the Bitcoin development team, not changing a few hardcoded values.
Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
trollogic:
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too small!
..time passes, block size increases...
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too big!
No. Will fail because seven transactions per second is laughable for a real currency. Will fail because the alternative is hardfork & blockchain bloat.
Why does such trivial shit need to be explained?
Hardfork to make it bloat more! Centralization, you unable to store the complete blockchain. 20MB blocks. Hardfork without consensus on it. Risk a split of the network. What's going to happen next?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/fork-off-919629
trollogic:
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too small!
..time passes, block size increases...
WAH! bitcoin is fail because block size too big!
In the comments he notes that current thinking is to propose that blocksize doubles every 2 years for the next 20 years. Moore's law (compute power) and Nielsen's law (bandwidth) should outrun it, so cheap/home machines in the future will be MORE able to process bitcoin blocks than they are now.
Also, Satoshi intended for the blocksize to be raised, for those of you who consider the ethos of the early days to be inviolate:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
Moore's law has been "running into issues" for decades. Also, the more relevant "law" is Nielsen's.
Than the blocksize should have been coded the way he intended originally instead of what we have now.
I wasn't around at the time, but my understanding is that the 1MB limit was put in place as a quick-fix to thwart DOS issues at the time. As should be clear from Satoshi's comment above, the intent was to up to the limit in not too long. So it "should've" been fixed in early 2011.
hard fork for just this; is stupid.
No, fixing this is critical. This is native money for the internet. 7 TPS is unacceptable, and bitcoin runs the risk of being relegated to toy status longterm if it can't scale. If there's no strong technical reason not to allow the scale-up (and there isn't), we should do it, and do it soon.
i think it's a pretty bad move to start such a discussion in this current market. Hardfork bitcoin? For what again?
Gavin started the conversation months ago.
https://blog.bitcoinfoundation.org/a-scalability-roadmap/
In the comments he notes that current thinking is to propose that blocksize doubles every 2 years for the next 20 years. Moore's law (compute power) and Nielsen's law (bandwidth) should outrun it, so cheap/home machines in the future will be MORE able to process bitcoin blocks than they are now.
Also, Satoshi intended for the blocksize to be raised, for those of you who consider the ethos of the early days to be inviolate:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
Than the blocksize should have been coded the way he intended originally instead of what we have now.
hard fork for just this; is stupid.
i think it's a pretty bad move to start such a discussion in this current market. Hardfork bitcoin? For what again?
Jump to: