Topic: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns - page 9. (Read 11213 times)

the public releases of all implementations offering a bitcoin HF are interacting with the bitcoins genesis block and blockchain data of bitcoin, thus are not an altcoin. however testnet and segnet do not touch any bitcoin data and there are no public releases for a segwit that interacts with bitcoin data

secondly its the same blockstreamers who want to treat anything not blockstream as an altcoin, and them same blockstreamers were the ones screaming that a HF would lead to 8gb blocks very soon..

it does make me laugh, in regards to pretending core is independant while simultaneously protecting blockstream by saying if its not part of the blockstream roadmap then its an altcoin..

im guessing bitcoinLJr.exe is a client for a altcoin?
im guessing bitcore is also an altcoin?

oh wait they are different implementations, but wrote by blockstreamers so you will categorize them as part of bitcoin.
well they are part of bitcoin.. not due to the blockstream connection, but due to them interacting with bitcoins genesis and blockdata

but speaking of a  "independant coder wanting a hardfork" must be an altcoin
i cannot wait until i see you defend LukeJrs harkfork to reduce difficulty and switch to sha3.. now that is going to take some meandering and back tracking on your part to convince people that hardforks are suddenly good..

the hypocrisy is loud in the blockstream camp.
"we dont want a HF because hardforks are bad. but if you dont accept a softfork we will do a hardfork, but not to give the community what it needs, instead to render sha256 mining useless"

the only people making altcoins is blockstream.. and they have been very public about it.
i just find it a shame that blockstream paid coders are resorting to blackmailing pools and bribing users to try squeezing segwit in before their private investment tranche deadline passes. as its becoming obvious the roadmap is more geared towards the private investment contract rather than bitcoin communities desires

By your twisted definition, 2MB2MB2MB is an altcoin too. Remember when XT and Classic propaganda got relegated to the Altcoin section?


And more twisting: the Gavinistas are the "real" small blocks advocates. Uh, yeah, except when you were all supporting exponential increases in the blocksize, up to 8GB? You seem to think that you can make your preferred fantasies into facts simply by typing them out and posting them (or by repeating-repeating-repeating-repeating.....).

You do realise that everyone else doesn't live in that bubble where they can only hear your voice? You might be able to hypnotise yourself with your own mantras, but everyone else just sees a dishevelled man, rocking in the corner saying the same words over and over again, banging his head on the wall.



You're a top shill for the takeover attempt, Franky, and you're so crap that you're now stealing my lines. When will you learn?

If the blocksize limit is far below what humanity is capable of accommodating with a highly decentralized network then yes, we'd be in a situation similar to the one we have today (hopefully without the node crashing concerns). This problem applies to all of the proposals.

ignoring the whistles in the wind from the obvious provocateur above

people want more capacity via the blocklimit. people after months of debate last year settled on 2mb as a not so harsh number to increase to, to squash most of the debates concerning bandwidth issues.

yet segwit will produce OVER 2mb of real data without offering any real capacity growth. as shown here
for just 350tx of ~1in1out https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/000000ddf050de21b895ff687102211806ef2322143c1bea2638490e696f6e56
for just 655tx of ~1in1out https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/00000056a6d930e62f81108f43b490931c9722a324a71b7e959fd03fb6be0580
for just 798tx of ~1in1out https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000000077e62f36a6e2e748cca6f5cd543ce3d1aa29ee83f1cfd584c6fad078
https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000019cf0e635db7bc894f1006369f128132e5e938857d99396309c9b1c99ee

this does not make those wanting a HF "bigblockers", but instead those wanting a SF are the real "bigblockers"

as for the comments of "segwit doesnt exist yet". that should be taken in the context of BITCOIN and not altcoins(yes testnet/segnet are altccoins). so because we only care about bitcoin and this topic is about the blocksize debate of... wait for it... BITCOIN. then its true right now segwit doesnt exist for the context of this debate

no one cares that an altcoin has feature X,Y,Z
unless people can use it with bitcoin and the code is embedded in a publicly available release that handles BITCOINs blockchain data, then its not even worth pretending that its solved bitcoins issues.. because it hasnt

+1

Alice, Franky and ziiip are probably all trolls and shills, and them turning your thread into an episode of WWE is likely an evolution of their "tactics" (lol). Alice and Franky are definite manipulative shills, it's possible that ziiiiiip is just a regular attention seeking internet troll.

They're all here to disrupt and malign, regardless of their motivation. They deserve ZERO respect. NOTHING

"Segwit doesn't even exist yet"? AFAIK Segwit has existed already back in 2015 within Liquid, but it was only after Luke-jr found a way to implement it with a soft fork that the work started on it for the main implementation. Over the course of time, there was segnet and now it is also on the testnet. The people that have been testing there have mined several 'bigger blocks'. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Take a look at part 8 or my thread titled "How I would take down Bitcoin" and you should clearly see what's going on.

Nah, it really is a miner decision, and they are the main ones to act if the problem becomes intolerable. They could have already forked around the obstruction, but deemed the benefit of a tense predictability greater than the danger of acting unilaterally and risking Core ragequitting a chunk of the market to a keccak altcoin, at least at that point in time.

The best we can do is to try to keep informed, argue our case where we can, and run node software that signals our intent.

Everyone knows there isn't a debate. Blocksize will not increase just by talking about it. More nefarious means will be required to stop Bitcoin from getting blockstreamed, unfortunately that may mean reverting to their own sick tactics.

Apathy mostly, I’d say. Most of the users left around here are sig spammers, dropping one-liners of meaningless drivel for their weekly shekel. Others think that if the price is going up on the exchange... it must be the right roadmap. The average Bitcoiner assumes… “Whell, the experts must know more than me (they do), they must be looking out for my best interests (they might not be)”.

They go to bitcoin.org to get their software, they go to theymos owned outlets for their information… we’ve created a bizarre little microcosm of the real world, happened faster and easier than I expected.   

Calm down folks, I was asking for a civilized debate and then people start namecalling eachother and insults...

We need to debate this stuff with clear minds and calm manner, otherwise it will be only a circus. So be more calm guys!

People need to call out this bullshit, why is everyone okay with this?

Basically, yeah, according to Carlton.

So even with consensus of users and miners(HK agreement) Gmaxwell is still Jesus? Is he uploading this shit from dialup or what?

SFSW has been sold as being done in lieu of an increase to the BITCOIN max_block_size (contrary to HK "consensus" meeting), so yes, it is relevant here.

need we mention that the big neon advertisement of segwit was to remove malleability..
where the problem of malleability was the ability to change a transaction before it gets confirmed to make zero confirms untrustable.
yet they go and "reintroduce" being able to replace a transaction by changing the fees(RBF).. making zero-confirms still untrustable even if malleability was fixed

then there is the "2mb of data is too much bloat for the network especially the chinese firewall blah blah" debate..
which got laughed at because although chinese companies run the (non-harddrive) ASICS within china. the pool server(hosting blockchain data) is outside the firewall
aswell as the maths of even a most basic ADSL connection allows home users to connect to a few nodes easily
and then we come to the real funny part.. segnet showing blocks over 2mb(1,2).. which totally laughs the "2mb is too much data" straight out the water.

need we forget the whole point of a maxblocksize rule is to ensure that a maximum of 1mb of real data is transmitted per block. which is basically rendered useless as a real rule if real data is exceeding 1mb with a 1mb rule

as for the doomsday of quadratics (yep they are running out of excuses and now scraping the bottom of the doomsday barrel)
they do not realise that not only will xthin/compact blocks mean that nodes are not having to validate 1-3mb of data in one lump just to know if a block is good or not.. also things like the re-coding of the validation code library is 5x more efficient.. so when individual transactions are relayed they are validated 5x faster compared to previous years..

so they are near scraping the bottom of the barrel finding reasons not to increase the maxblocksize, is that "hard forks are bad".
yet the so called "soft" fork is apparently more harder then first thought.. now requiring 95% acceptance followed by a grace period to activate.. strangely advertised that it was fully backward compatible and all nodes can sing and dance together harmoniously without consensus..

hmmm.. well knowing full nodes will want to remain full nodes. they will want to upgrade anyway.. so if they are going to be upgrading. they might aswell add in a change to the maxblocksize (preferably one that self adjusts without having to rely on core-devs to spoon feed new code every few years.. after a year of debate.)

then when the 95% hits and the full nodes want to upgrade.. there is no mass panic.. or having to upgrade again in a few months and go though the consensus process again.. because its already part of bitcoins code

but wait.. they have one last ditch attempt up their sleeves..
rather than have code available and let users choose if they want it.. its far better they dont release the code, to cause contention. and then blame contention.... ... ... ... (facepalm)

I understand that segwit provides the possibility for things like payment channels etc. But why is it being touted as a scaling solution for BITCOIN, knowing that segnet and Bitcoin are two different things. I think the topic of this thread is about The BITCOIN blocksize debate unless i misread the title. . .

Just because one has a problem with the way LN type payment contracts are being economically favored through the central planning of a static maxblocksize... doesn't mean one has to / should be against them totally.

Let's face it, they are a breakthrough that really could be a serious force multiplier for Bitcoin. Segwit brings big benefits too in terms of validation costs, it's more than just malleability.

I'm for fair competition of different solutions, on-chain/off-chain/hybrids, etc... I only complain about the economic incentives being tilted in favor of a "chosen" solution by an infallible priesthood of Core devs.

If malleability is not an actual problem, then what is segwit good for? A scalability solution? At the end of the day someone still has to relay segwit transactions. Why should we need to run a relay network node and a bitcoin network node? Is there any incentive to run a Lightning Network node?

Edit: I understand that segwit provides the possibility for things like payment channels etc. But why is it being touted as a scaling solution for BITCOIN, knowing that segnet and Bitcoin are two different things. I think the topic of this thread is about The BITCOIN blocksize debate unless i misread the title. . .

I’m saying your point wasn’t sufficiently sharpened.

Malleability isn’t an actual problem for most applications. Where it is a problem, for LN type payment contracts, it can be fixed by segwit, which they will use. So, while you declared a true statement in the snapshot of today, you didn’t follow with what that means for us… which explains the blunt tip of your reply. 

What are you even talking about?