Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 2. (Read 9367 times)

once you have researched what they all actually are.
-snip-

Interesting assertion. I'd like to read your extensive code review of each such "other implementation".

You do, of course, realize that if one lonely cpu starts mining upon this chain, you will have been proven utterly wrong?

Oh wait - self-contradiction in one neat paragraph - quite an achievement!

Well, no. Segwit does absolutely nothing to make larger blocks safe.

no way is any miner ever going to support this.

Not to mention the amount of botnets that will hop onto this bandwagon.

Unsafe without Segwit,

The problem is that these "other implementations" only have half-baked, horribly coded improvements.

i think its time lauda goes spend a few hours to ask his friends the difference between xthin and headers first

ill give hm a hint.

We never wanted a split, we just want bitcoin to be available to everyone.

The facts still state that you are wrong, and 4MB blocksizes are perfectly safe. 20MB with xthin is also perfectly safe. But i'm happy with 4MB for now, or even 2MB until we need more.

No one has the money to set up a several months long non-stop spam attack.

This is all legitimate users and you know it.

Quadratric validation time doesn't matter if you just limit the transaction size to 1MB or lower.

So introducing confusion in addition to the media portraying Bitcoin as a joke due to that is what you want?

Fun fact: Neither one of those teams have developed anything worth incorporating into Bitcoin Core. Don't get me started on idiotic ideas such as "header-first mining".

Yes it is and no we can not.

The BU testing methodology is garbage and should not be used as 'evidence' for anything.

Both safety and anti-spam.

You can't prove this and you know it.

No, it is not. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Quadratic validation time without Segwit. I highly doubt you even understand the big O notation.

No it's not. We can safely increase the limit to at least 4MB right now, and there won't be a problem.

It has been tested on testnet already. Stop spreading misinformation. There's nothing dangerous about bigger blocks.

The reason of the blocksize limit was not decentralization, not safety, but anti-spam.

The blocks aren't full of spam

Also it's ridiculous to say 2MB blocksize is dangerous while saying we should get 2MB later. f it's not dangerous later it's not dangerous now either.

2 MB is inherently dangerous

though the internet is proven to be fast for hundred of MILLIONS of people as shown by all the countries doing livestreaming to prove its not a dream. the community accept some places can get over 100mb/s

I don't know but check this: https://ww.reddit.com/r/btcfork/comments/53tfnb/hfp0_an_early_prototype_of_a_bitcoin_hard_fork/

optional change of POW (modified scrypt, CPU mineable and hopefully ASIC-resistant)

an implementation of BitPay's adaptive block size algorithm, adjusting in the range 2MB-4MB

Fun fact: Neither one of those teams have developed anything worth incorporating into Bitcoin Core. Don't get me started on idiotic ideas such as "header-first mining".

Exactly, it's just a spin-off of the actual bitcoin blockchain .
I don't care about the name bitcoin classic, unlimited or I don't know...

the important thing is that they increase the blocksize and add other few interesting things.

For every bitcoin you have, you will now have one bitcoin, and one bitcoin classic!  May the best coin win!

Interesting, freedom of choice no one will force you to run a software... never.

says the guy who hasnt even read a line of code.
nor even knows a line of core code without spoonfeeding

The problem is that these "other implementations" only have half-baked, horribly coded improvements.

I just mean that Africa is not a country, goober.  People are tightly wound these days.   

if your talking about why i switched from talking about hard drive to bandwidth, obviously hard drives are cheap so the other 'cost' is internet speed
if your talking about my reasoning to talk about UPLOAD instead of download.. there is a technical reason for this
if your talking about why i am mentioning uploading live video. as oppose to a tweet there is an obvious reason for this too

the reason i used live streaming is because its a real life scenario people can understand of large data moving..
(upload 10minutes of SD(0.5mbIT/sec) quality video=~37mbyte of data)

months ago lauda attempted to debunk WATCHING videos as that was only download bandwidth to which i replied months ago with UPLOAD stats of livestream recording at that time. and today was reminding him of the facts that the internet as a whole is not a problem for 2-4mb blocks upload and by default definitely no issues for download

though the internet is proven to be fast for hundred of MILLIONS of people as shown by all the countries doing livestreaming to prove its not a dream. the community accept some places can get over 100mb/s, but as a safe level the majority feel 2-4 is acceptable.. even core believe 4mb is acceptable now.
im not going to get into the debate of someone else advocating 20mb, as that is just poking laudas bear and not something the community as a whole could consider right now(though technically possible).

i personally have only been advocating for 2mb this year knowing rationally that in the near future technology progresses to allow for more (even if the technology is already available now. its best to stay in the safe zone)

in short 4mb is internet safe, 2mb is even safer so data speed debate of 2mb should be considered resolved as it was before late 2015 (even in cores 4mb eyes, 2mb is safe)

which is why i laugh hard when lauda was saying 2mb was bad.. yet his friends are saying 4mb is acceptable, and lauda has now backtracked to say 4mb is acceptable "because its core". but 2mb is still bad.

even if its a 2mb base 4mb weight linear validation rules.. lauda will still not be happy and will always try to debate some crap to keep core as the overlords, rather than all implementations coming to a joint agreement making all implementations all on the same level playing field coming to a joint consensus, which the community thought we reached before last christmas. and then tried to get core back inline in spring. and then again in summer..

-snip-
I suppose we can keep musing about how irrational it would be for such blocks to mined... but, food for thought.

-snip-
months ago lauda attempted to debunk WATCHING videos as that was only download bandwidth to which i replied months ago with UPLOAD stats of livestream recording at that time. and today was reminding him of the facts that the internet as a whole is not a problem for 2-4mb blocks upload and by default definitely no issues for download

im not going to get into the debate of someone else advocating 20mb, as that is just poking laudas bear and not something the community as a whole could consider right now(though technically possible).

which is why i laugh hard when lauda was saying 2mb was bad.. yet his friends are saying 4mb is acceptable, and lauda has now backtracked to say 4mb is acceptable "because its core". but 2mb is still bad.

lauda will still not be happy and will always try to debate some crap to keep core as the overlords,

rather than all implementations coming to a joint agreement making all implementations all on the same level playing field coming to a joint consensus, which the community thought we reached before last christmas.