Topic: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns - page 12. (Read 11181 times)

We already have pretty corrupt devs, just look at Gavin for example.

Satoshi didn't say anything about dev team structure that I'm aware of. But guess what he did do? Presided over the evolution of the exact dev team structure that we have now, with almost all of the original coders still contributing like they did back when they did so alongside Satoshi.

And what did Satoshi say about the "evil centralised dev team" once he'd watched and collaborating in building it up? Nothing.




Nexttttttttttttttttttttttt. Who wants it?

Let’s face facts Carlton. Gregory’s (and your) opinion that Bitcoin is kept safe and decentralized by the wisdom of a centralized and technocratic development team is a sharp break from what satoshi wrote in the white paper and elsewhere.

You could argue that he was wrong and that he couldn’t foresee how important dev control over this parameter would be… but you can’t argue that this isn’t a break from what he wrote. This break has led to the perversion of the original vision where economic incentives protect and govern Bitcoin’s trajectory to a vision where key developers carefully manage an anti-dos limit from 2010 for use as an economic policy tool. (A tool that can directly benefit the company they formed with Austin Hill.)

Go ahead and cry troll if something makes you uncomfortable, but know that it makes you look silly and compromised.

lol Franky, you started the personal attacks.


The thing about your personal attacks against you & others? Easily demonstrated as false.

The thing about my personal attacks against you? True. All true. And the truth hurts. And you're hurting. Bad. Lol.

carlton i have had this same account since day one. it has never been sold,
but its obvious your mindset of thinking that people can be "bought" resides from the knowledge of your dear friends being bought out..
this just adds more ammo to the common debate of the last couple years.

blockstreams $$$ investment has turned originally ethical coders, into dominating control freaks.
adding to that, your blind fanboy admiration for them by:
defending them by saying in one sentence they deserve to run bitcoin, because they are a big well crafted team
then pretend in another sentence they are not part of bitcoin, or core
then in another sentence saying blockstream was set up by the coders uniting,
then in another sentence saying the coders are independent,

really goes to show you would say anything to let bitcoin become incorporated.
the reason you are bored of my narrative that the blocklimit needs to increase, is because i have one narrative. its not due to XT, its not due to classic, its not due to BU, its not due to luke Jrs signed promise. its due to my personal beliefs.

however your narrative cannot find a single direction of thought on the face of it, but when you brush away the meandering sub-context you try to make, the obvious devotion to blockstream becomes apparent.

that said i really hope blockstream helps your monero altcoin hoards become worth millions. because you are really reaching the bottom and running out of ways to defend them. and i hope you get rich before they leave you high and dry

plus your hypocrisy is getting much louder, along with your futile insults so thats another reason i hope to see you concentrate more on your altcoin desires

by the way every time i see you insult one of the 300,000 merchants in the bitcoin industry, all you are really saying is that you are jealous that your monero doesnt have the same level of industry.

..
sometimes i think its a real shame that you have blind devotion to blockstream. because there will become a day when the bubble will burst for your cultish behavior and you will have to re-enter the real world

Franky, get a new job.

You can't be eating well from this one, where's your vitality, man? Please, I'm begging you to do this better than you have been, it's hardly worth my time these days. I expect higher quality BS logic and trolling from you. C'mon, what happened to the old Franky1? (yeah, we know you bought the account years ago and have been aping his "ordinary person" schtick ever since)

carlton is just mad that no one is proclaiming adam back as the messiah.

Ok, but what are you going to do with your self-proclaimed (lol) "reasonable expectations"? Hmmmmm?


And your claim that I said Satoshi was always wrong isn't just :

• plainly not what happened, a couple of posts up, you moron
• obviously massively illogical statement for a long-term Bitcoiner like me to make
• but a pure and simple demonstration of what a foul-playing troll you are

Good post xDan,

Very representative of satoshi's thinking on scaling, fees and time.
It is not cherry picking to provide 5 quotes and also, as you said, "read and understand what he wrote".

Carlton Banks provides no counter quote, as usual, just goes on to say
"you had no reasonable expectations that Satoshi would ... always be right"

I think your expectation was reasonable.
Far more reasonable than Banks expectation satoshi was always wrong.

I also signed up to the simpler and safer satoshi Bitcoin.
Not this barely tested, change everything, we know better, my internet is shit when I'm on holiday friendly, Banks bitcoin.

Segwit will be released with the Compact Blocks block-relay feature too, so Franky is just as aimless and meaningless as usual.

here is carlton trying hard but failing..
for one
0.5mBIT/s upload = 64kBYTE/s
64kBYTE/s = 3.75mBYTE per minute
3.75mBYTE/m = 37mBYTE per 10 minutes.

so not great if your trying to relay a block to more than 7 nodes in under 2 minutes.. but possible.
and knowing there are only 6000 nodes. and the rules of seven degrees of separation. you dont actually need to be connecting to 7 nodes,

infact if you live in a low internet upload rate. you are probably going to be one of the people that opts for the "pruned" and "no witness mode" anyway.

which brings me onto my other point.
segnet has seen many blocks that are also more than 1mb of real data.. so segwit does not solve the data rate, segwit is just as bloated as anything else

and by the way running pruned nowitness mode does not make you a full node. you are basically converted into being just an SPV wallet by enabling pruned/nowitness. so dont presume you can save bandwidth usage and remain a fullnode.

so expect that even with segwit the node population will drop.

It's not bitcoins fault that their internet is shitty.

Where I live we have 20mb/s bandwidth with 99.99999999% uptime. Only 1 or maybe 2 days / year the internet is slower, the other times works best.

Those countries should start inviting more ISP in their country, if the internet is so bad, the first ISP that offers big bandwidth will make a ton of money, so there is no logic why the ISP doesnt offer bigger bandwidth, he can make a ton of money and get big marketshare.

Of course unless the legislation sucks, but that is the politicians fault not bitcoin nor the businesses. They need fewer regulations to host good internet.

Right, well that's wrong.

More users won't and can't amount to an increase in nodes; if increasing the blocksize prevents them running a node, they'll end up using web-nodes or non-verifying wallets instead (i.e. reduced/zero censorship resistance).


Last year, I spent time staying in middle-class rural area, in a Western country. Maximum internet speeds were 0.5 MB/s dl, 0.5 MD/s ul. Only last year.

When I tried keeping my full node online in that setting, no-one else could use the same 0.5MB/s internet line for anything except baaaaaaasic webpages. If the webpage had more than a few megabytes of images, it was either too frustratingly slow to load, or just failed outright.


If that's what people in rural Western countries can expect, those in urban 3rd world countries won't be getting alot better. We need those people. So a conservative approach is best for achieving both censorship resistance and decentralisation with this type of system. Decentralisation is a vital component to censorship resistance when you factor in the resources required to use Bitcoin in a censorship resistant fashion.

But the correlation is 99% between centralization and censorship. Everyone things that by censoring only few evil transactions is good, but then soon find out that everyone will be censored.

You either have no censorship, or full censorship, there is no middle ground for it, it's a black & white issue.

Censorship is enabled by technical factors but motivated by political sentiment.
All other things being equal, increased user adoption decreases technical vulnerability (more users means more nodes and a higher bitcoin price which means more miners) and improves political standing.

https://security.cs.georgetown.edu/~msherr/papers/censorship-as-sideeffect.pdf

How does user adoption, in isolation, increase censorship resistance?

Decentralization is not an important goal in and of itself.  The end goal is censorship resistance.
User adoption contributes to censorship resistance. Therefore to the extent a block size limit restricts user adoption, it also diminishes censorship resistance.

You're misrepresenting Satoshi if you think cherry-picking things he's said to support a bigblocks perspective is the sum total of his reasoning on the matter: it isn't.

And, Satoshi didn't get every single detail right anyway, and also, he's not (known) to be developing Bitcoin any more. When you bought Bitcoin, you had no reasonable expectations that Satoshi would either always be right, or that he would always be around. I got in right when Satoshi left, maybe that helps with my perspective a little better.




Just because Central Bankers believe they're "magical people", doesn't mean other monetary genius's should be examined with the same faulty measuring technique.

No. Sidechains are a good idea and you're spewing out false information. If there "is no functioning system", then what is Liquid? What is Rootstock supposed to be?

It seems that everything that comes from the people which are trying to improve Bitcoin is a failure, according to the people who have no skills and/or no contributions to the ecosystem.

No, it is not centralized. If it were centralized, the main person could push any changes that they've wanted. Additionally "blockstream/core" is an very ignorant statement. Are you not capable of comprehending the difference between those two?

As a hodler for 5 years, since 2011, this is what I bought into:




Highlights added by me.

After reading the whitepaper, and Satoshi's other writings, I bought Bitcoin.

Anything other than what Satoshi specified is a deviation from what I bought into, and should be treated with great suspicion.

If you read and understand what he wrote, he intended Bitcoin to support what was possible according to network limits. He did not intend hard limits to force any specific level of "decentralisation" - only those necessary to prevent "flooding" and the network completely falling to its knees.