Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 3. (Read 9352 times)

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..

The most interesting thing about the above-quoted list is that nobody wants to play the obvious zinger in response. Have a little fun. Please.

Today's DOS attack on Ethereum is relevant here:

http://www.ethnews.com/ethereum-network-under-a-dos-attack


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

Because it's the wrong position to have and it has many cons which should not be ignored. 2 MB is inherently dangerous, hence the additional limitations as added by Gavin's BIP for Classic. Segwit aims to solve this, in addition to increasing the capacity with usage (which should result in around 170-180% increase). After Segwit, we should look into acceptable block size increases. In addition to all of this, deploying a HF just for the sake of a block size increase is horribly inefficient. There are certainly some changes/optimizations that require a HF and those should be deployed along side the block size increase.

Yes, you have. It's still better than the franky1's "You all want Monero to succeed" fantasy.

If you are not against blocksize increase, then why do you keep arguing against it?

I'm not taking things out of context, although I do remember someone doing just that a few posts ago.


So is the analogy, with the side effect that it is limiting users. Which bitcoin is doing right now too. (and you know full well what I mean by that, don't derail the conversation by arguing semantics)

What was meant is that I'm against additional imposed limitations in order to favor a HF. I'm undecided about TX size as there haven't been that many discussions about it.

Listing cons of something != disagreeing with it. There is likely going to be some headroom with Segwit, where an additional increase of 1-2 MB may be okay. I'm still waiting for Luke-Jr's proposal.

Taking things out of context in other to strengthen your position is what one would usually define a lying manipulator as.

No, that's not what Bitcoin "is doing right now". Bitcoin can't do anything on its own as Bitcoin isn't an entity that can decide for itself. In addition to that, the analogy is false since the limit in currently a safeguard from the DOS risk at 2 MB or higher.

I'll even risk by saying that enthusiast grade hardware will not be able to validate a sigop expensive 20 MB block in time. Someone would need to test this out to confirm though.

Here you are disagreeing with limiting the transaction size. (limiting it to 1MB is implied, just to be sure you understand, the current limit is 1MB because the blocksize is 1MB and therefore a transaction larger than 1MB doesn't fit).


and here you are disagreeing with increasing the block size.

So even though those statements weren't direct quotes (I never implied they were quotes), I can proof that they align with your statements. Therefore you are contradicting yourself, and falsely accusing me of lying.


you can't just block honest transactions because you're afraid of spam. You're doing more harm than good that way.

That's like only allowing 100 users at a time to connect to google.com because otherwise google.com might be DDOSed. So whenever there's 100 users on google, google.com blocks all requests until one of the users is done.    

If google.com would do that, how long do you think google.com remains the most popular search engine?

Not very long.

And yet, that's exactly what bitcoin is doing right now.


Not enough time for what? Verifying with an abacus?

Could you get equipment from this century at least?

fun fact, 100% of the troll I have spoken to have used the following arguments when they run out of actual arguments:

Does not matter if I am actually using ad hominem or strawman arguments.

There's actually some proposals for 20MB blocks and they're widely accepted. source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy#Entities_positions

In favor: Magnr, Ethereum (If bitcoin is used as currency), armory, bitcoinreminder, bithours, bitpay, bittiraha.fi, blockchain.info, blocktrail, breadwallet, BTC guild, BX.in.th, coinbase, coinify, adam back, kryptoradio, okcoin, 3rd key solutions, xapo, F2pool (in favor of 5MB, 20MB is too soon for them).

Opposed: bitcoinpaygate, bitrated, greenaddress, mpex, paymium.

The only entity actually providing a reason for opposition is greenaddress, who provided "it's only a temporary solution" as a reason. So they recognize the problem, but they don't agree with the solution because they think it won't fix the problem long-term.


Btw, only 6 out of 144 countries have an average upload speed of < 0.9 Mb/s, only 2 of them have an average download speed of < 0.9Mb/s (burkina faso [0.84 Mb/s] and niger [0.6 Mb/s])

0 out of 144 countries have an average download speed of < 0.3 Mb/s and 2 out of 144 have an average upload speed of < 0.3 (burkina faso [0.29 Mb/s] and niger [0.2 Mb/s])

total population of those two countries is roughly 34 million (both countries are about 17 million)

Those might struggle a little bit, but even they could probably run 20MB blocks (especially if we include xthin blocks)



Although I think it's together with xthin blocks to make the network propagation more efficient by a factor of at least 5 times. So effectively they would be like 4MB blocks but allowing 20MB worth of transactions (and i can only imagine what SegWit/LN could improve on this).

Scaling is possible, it's only some people holding it back, for no particular reason.

I have made neither one of these statements. Now you're just an outright liar and manipulator (say hi to Veritas for me).

Ad hominem nonsense due to losing ground.

You're the one wasting time with wrongful information trying to mislead people into supporting something that is both inherently controversial and dangerous.

Until somebody "turns on" the spam again, and suddenly everyone is stuck with massive bloat.

Xthin is half-baked level improvement, just like pretty much any other BU development has been.

No, that's not even nearly enough time, especially not without Segwit.

You do realize that in order to have transactions bigger than 1MB you would need blocks bigger than 1MB right?   
i hope you have at least that level of intelligence.

Considering your contradiction posts on this subject though, I am starting to doubt that. (either that, or you are forgetting your own statements in less than a few hours after posting them).

Statement 1:
I don't want blocks larger than 1MB

Statement 2:
I might want transactions larger than 1MB

These are not compatible with each other (not to mention, they're ridiculous, even in their own, but together they're even worse).

If you don't understand me, than that's not my problem, but yours.   
See above comment
I doubt it.
It's pretty clear you have no idea what a strawman argument is, and are accusing me of using them while your whole premise is based on one.   
You're only showing that talking with you is a massive waste of anyone's time.

well, this is the first time you actually have a point, I didn't bother calculating that, so I turned out to be wrong in that statement.

Still, in practice even a cheap 500GB drive would last for at least half a year, and most likely longer because it's unlikely blocks of 20MB would be filled every time at least for the next few years.


Except that you snipped out the part where I actually admitted this before you even brought it up as an argument, along with saying that this isn't an issue because it's several orders of magnitude lower than even slow internet speeds. So even if you account for this, it's not a problem.     

Not only do you show an inability to reasoning on any level of intelligence, you also are also purposely misrepresenting my quotes. I'm not beyond admitting when I'm wrong, I am wrong sometimes, but that does not invalidate my arguments. Fact is, every single person is wrong sometimes, but that does not make everything they say wrong.

And xthin blocks would solve that issue too, but Core doesn't support xthin (of course, because core doesn't support improvement).



Well, it's a good thing Satoshi was smart enough to keep block times at 10 minutes then, unlike many altcoins who have blocktimes of mere seconds.     
10 minutes should be enough for the slower nodes to keep up with plenty of headroom. (this is also why I oppose of altcoins with very fast blocktimes).

well i just thought that with all of your cries about internet speeds and stuff there was no way that you could live in america..
also things like talking croatian and being a mod of the croation category..

anyway
although 20mb is diverting off the current proposals by a factor of 5-10x.. and entering the cosmic theory of doomsday dreams, lets ask you..
are you saying to this other guy that 0.3mb internet speeds is something the world is averaging.
is this 0.3mb speed something you yourself are suffering with..

have you also complained to skype for offering video services to millions of happy people because in your eyes them millions of people must be unhappy.
have you also complained to twitch, youtube, and other video upload services that do live streaming?

in short is 0.3mb a real world problem where video uploading and livestream is a problem (uses more data then all current bitcoin proposals)

hmm.. lets pick a country .
ok africa..http://www.africawebtv.com/
ok korea..http://www.afreecatv.com/
ok russia..http://www.vichatter.com/

i could go on..
seems all countries around the world can livestream.

the funny thing is that you are more distraught about including 3rd world countries than excluding them.
this is because internet speeds are not excluding 3rd world countries, but the thing you have shown many times, is that your desire for higher fee's will price 3rd world countries out of using bitcoin.
i then laugh that you pretend you want higher fee's to reduce spam. yet you want to remove features like sigops, which will allow spammy transactions to increase. (funny that)

I wasn't talking about that when I mentioned the potential of unknown attack vectors.  

I don't agree with that. I haven't thought about it, and I'm pretty sure that there may very well be a normal use case for some business.

1) I don't get "mad" when someone rationally shows supreme arguments. 2) You did no such thing.

You have done no such thing. You're starting to resemble Veritas.

I may or may not be able to, not that it would matter.

It's a pure example of strawman fallacy. I never argued that "technology didn't become cheaper" did I? Don't attempt to use fallacies again, else we end up with nonsense as "Strawman nodes".  

20 MB per block x 6 blocks per hour x 24 hours a day x 365 days a year = ~1051 GB per year. Please explain how a 1/2 TB drive (aka 500 GB drive) would run for "several years".

20 MB / 10 minutes = 2 MB per 1 minute. 2 divided by 60 = 0.03 MB/s. Let me tell you why your thinking is flawed (not that you're going to admit this). If a node is downloading at this speed, it will never catch up. Why is that? By the time that it downloads a 20 MB block, it is likely that another one will be created. The node would still be validating the previous block in addition to having the next one. I do wonder how long it takes to validate a 20 MB block on decent hardware though.

Validation time.

---

No, I am not and have never been in Croatia.

500gb hard drive. well your the one that chooses to not think about the future, only you will be the one crying
cant blame bitcoin or anyone else if your hard drive fills up in 2.5 years+ (core 4mb weight)

a 2tb hard drive is only 800,00 kuna (im guessing your still in croatia) (£90 : $120 for those not wishing to convert kuna to western currencies)
not sure why you are even choosing 500gb

i feel like your actually trying to shoot yourself in the foot just to have a reason to cry in 2 years, even though 2tb is not a "data centre" cost and will last you for atleast 10 years (core 4mb weight)

The whole reason huge transactions are unsafe is because of quadratic scaling, which won't work if you split up the equation across two transactions that scale linearly with each other.       

So you agree there's no normal use case for 1MB or larger transactions, so why do you oppose limiting transactions to 1MB while increasing blocksize? That gets rid of your man argument (security) while also allowing more transaction throughput, and therefore more users.   

Are you mad because I can destroy your entire argument in 2 minutes of typing?


Sorry but I just destroyed your argument, and you have no ground to disagree on, except the right to disagree, but you have no actual logical reason to disagree.     
I have proven this to be factually correct, and it remains true until you prove proof that your disagreement is backed by logical reasoning and facts. 

TIL ETH is centralized. Yeah they have their differences, but centralization is not one of them.

I don't even know Ver, but from the few interviews I have heard from him he seems like a reasonable and nice guy, although I don't always agree with all he sais.


And you can teach me?


I'm sure this is in no way a strawman argument.

If anything, your conjecture is based on a strawman argument, because you are defending imaginary nodes (strawman) that would be blocked out of being a node because they can't run an imaginary node on on imaginary system with a hard drive that belongs in the 90s and internet that is basically quite literally smoke signals.   

Any computer made after 2000 and even the most basic internet connection has no problem at all running a 20MB node. And with no problem at all I mean that it is barely noticeable that you are even running a node while at the same time actually using your computer for other tasks.

If anyone is having strawman arguments it's you, because you're using strawman nodes to back up your defense. I am talking about actual technology and actual nodes, that are not aaffected by larger block size in the slightest.

If you can find actual persons that actually will be affected by a larger blocksize, be my guest, I'd like to hear their testimonies.

That's still plenty to run 20MB blocksize for several years, even if you falsely assume every single block is full. (and it's still a drive measured in terabytes)


It's quite easy, you just divide the blocksize by the average time it takes to find a block. Obviously, you would need internet faster than that to be actually useful as a node, but on average your internet would use that amount of data. When a new block is found, it would for a few seconds use more bandwidth, followed by a couple of minutes of almost no activity at all. The point is though that 266kb/s is ridicilously small, and everyone has internet orders of magnitudes faster than that, so even for the most basic internet user, the network usage would not even be noticable.

And what is the primary bottleneck then? I'm sure memory won't be a problem with blocksizes smaller than a few gigabyte.

There may or may not be attack vectors that could work with 2x 1 MB transactions. Just because it seems safe, that doesn't mean that it will be.

I'm not talking about normal usage when it comes to security problems.

Said every person when losing their ground.

It's one thing to fork something small and centralized, and another to fork Bitcoin.

Stop being "spoon fed" (as franky1 would put it) by Ver & co.


It does not, as can be seen with your lack of experience in regards to large scale infrastructure.

Strawman argument.

Yes, they're being sold and yes I plan to buy a 1/2 TB drive.

You obviously aren't factoring in the primary bottleneck, but let's go with this. How did you derive this number, i.e. by calculating what?

If you limit the transaction size to 1MB, nothing changes from having a 1MB blocksize without a transaction size limit.

Who would ever need to fill an entire block with 1 transaction?  

You are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing at this point.      
That doesn't mean you can't look at other coins as an example. The main use of altcoins is to be a testbed for bitcoin, so that bitcoin can learn from their successes and mistakes. To prevent havng to make the same mistakes, while still benefiting from their successful projects.    
If bitcoin can keep up with the successful implementations of altcoins, while avoiding their mistakes, there will never be a reason for any altcoin to overtake bitcoin.    
However, if we stick our head in the sand and ignore altcoins altogether, some altcoin will eventualy shove bitcoin aside as old-fashioned and out-of-date. (Bitcoin would become the myspace of crypto)
It does. You can't just say this every time someone disproves your statements.
First of all, technology has become much cheaper in the past 6 years (on average at least). And besides, who really has a hard drive measured in gigabytes anymore?    
Do you have any idea how long it takes for a TB to fill up on blocks of just a few MB? FYI a TB is a million MB.
Even a year worth of blocks only takes up a fraction of a home computer. Not a server, a regular home computer (even a laptop). If we increase the blocksize, it would only take up a larger fraction, but still it doesn't even fill an entire disk. So it would not actually cost anyone anything, unless their hard disk is already full. But even if someone's hard disk was full, he'd soon need a new drive anyway, because even without bigger blocks he'd run out of space soon.    
And since no one is going to buy a hard drive of less than 1TB anyway (are they even sold anymore?) your argument is mood.      

Even worse with network. Does anyone seriously have a bandwidth so low that 266kb/s is a problem? (that would be 20MB blocks).




You're forgetting the part where they claim we want bitcoin to be a "get rich quick scamcoin"  

Because obviously the only reason we want bigger blocks is because a bigger block would magically cause the bitcoin price to become 20 times higher, which also is a bad thing.


You don't pay for data directly, most people already own a computer, and they use nowhere near 100% capacity on their internet nor on their hard drive.

Increasing the maximum block size doesn't change this (unless you increase it to terabytes, but  am not asking for terabytes)    

Besides, not every block will be full anyway. Every block is full now, but the whole point about bigger blocks is that not every block should be full in the first place (there needs to be some headroom).    

I don't know about you, but we haven't paid per MB of internet usage since the 90s. Or were you using your mobile phone as a node with cloud storage? Because in that case, you're doing it wrong.

By the way, a $300 computer can last you 10 years easily, you're not using it for gaming, you're using it as a node.

Also, where is segwit then? And if t's already deployed like you said, then why are they promising to deploy it in 2017 now? It's already active right?

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

1 MB of data per full block -> 2 MB of data per full block. This equals to 2x increase.

My node is not on any online service. Stop spreading lies.

$300 won't last you 10 years.

Both are false. Core did deliver Segwit in April, but there was no mention of activation by that time. "LN active" is a pure lie. There are other groups that are developing Lightning.

Statements like this one make people ignorant fools by default.

If find it sad and surprising that so many people seem to be in favor of core, as opposed to classic/unlimited. I wouldn't be surprised if they just went with the 'default' option not actually even knowing that by downloading the 'default' wallet they actually vote in support of core.    

Core's official roadmap claims to have Segwit and LN active in April/July 2016 respecitively, but it's already september and neither of them are active now. Mainwhile blocks are mostly full and no solution is offered by core.    

By the time segwit and LN go online (if ever) it's too little too late. Mainwhile, bitcoin is losing marketshare rapidly, and due to the network effect, this could have permanent disastrous results for bitcoin.    

In my opinion, people make way too big a deal about an increase from 1MB to even 2MB, while 2MB blocks don't even hurt anyone (heck, even 20MB blocks wouldn't hurt anyone).        

what actual costs..

a 2tb hard drive does not cost more if its storing 52gb or 104gb.. and in 20 years-40 years when its full that hard drive cost is marginal
wait. lets put it into cores 4mb preference
10 years usage

most people change their computers every 5 years anyway


oh i forgot you dont have a real node running on a home computer. you have an online AWS node with only probably 100gb storage

try splashing out $300 and run a real node for once and be part of the decentralized network. that $300 will last you over 10 years
($30 a year, $2.50 a month) much cheaper then amazons $15 a month