The question Gavin and Hearn cannot answer

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on May 31, 2015, 11:06:50 AM

that logic in the OP; I'm speechless.

So you're saying, because 20mb might not be enough in the future, 1mb is enough forever? Totally makes sense. They need to create a nobel prize for logic and give it to you.

That is not what I said, stop twisting my words!

I said that 20MB is not enough anyway, thus this is NOT a solution, thus moving ahead with the increase breaks more than it solves. Because it actually does break more than it solves, by having nodes dropping off even faster.

Right now, you better wait for sidechains and stop hoping for arbitrary raising of the block size.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

that logic in the OP; I'm speechless.

So you're saying, because 20mb might not be enough in the future, 1mb is enough forever? Totally makes sense. They need to create a nobel prize for logic and give it to you.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 10:22:37 AM

Quote from: Netnox on May 31, 2015, 10:18:02 AM

Bitcoin is supposed to be a global payment system and ready for big amount of transactions, you are basically saying 'i don't want bitcoin to succeed' gtfo man.

You CANNOT scale the worlds payments into the blockchain. You are delusional to think that all transactions will be hosted and mitigated via nodes. Increasing the blockchain size is NOT a solution. Its a fear patch!

no one with any connection to bitcoin code ever envisions bitcoin to handle every transaction of the world.
infact even in the VISA/mastercard market. they do not just have 1 database (ledger) they have dozens..

1 for dollar
1 for pounds
1 for yuan
etc etc

then if you divide up the fact that there are 4 major card companies, each with separate ledgers per currency then you will work out that the number of tx's per ledger is far less than advertised.

for instance if i wanted to buy something on amazon (from the UK) my tx wont be on the same ledger as you buying something from amazon from america, even if we both used a visacard.

uk payments and US payments get processed in different offices and end up in different visa owned bank accounts.

in short bitcoin does not need to cope with the worlds combined transactions. even if bitcoin has just 21million users (out of 7 billion) it will be a success.

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

Quote from: Netnox on May 31, 2015, 10:18:02 AM

Bitcoin is supposed to be a global payment system and ready for big amount of transactions, you are basically saying 'i don't want bitcoin to succeed' gtfo man.

You CANNOT scale the worlds payments into the blockchain. You are delusional to think that all transactions will be hosted and mitigated via nodes. Increasing the blockchain size is NOT a solution. Its a fear patch!

Netnox

legendary

Activity: 2044

Merit: 1008

Bitcoin is supposed to be a global payment system and ready for big amount of transactions, you are basically saying 'i don't want bitcoin to succeed' gtfo man.

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

Quote from: franky1 on May 31, 2015, 10:07:24 AM

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 09:56:27 AM

Alright, we have less than 12 months.

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months. Can we at least WAIT to see what that does? If they still dont solve our problem, at least to some significant extend, I will switch side.

blockstream is not bitcoin.. its a totally new chain that not only mutes the argument of databloat as it not only has to handle 1chain, but multiple chains.. but alsois just profiting the sidechain owners who premine the hell out of it.

i would rather bitcoin continue with less data limits preventing expansions.. rather that having 20 different altcoins premined and attached to bitcoin so that greedy people like lukejr, gmaxwell and wuille can sell the premine for bitcoins..

imagine 20 altcoins all attached to one app. the databloat will exceed what gavin proposes, of just having bitcoin.. but it looks like you and hund have been sniffing the magicdust supplied by greedy people and ignored the benefits of just concentrating on a bitcoin only blockchain ledger.

blockstream would suddenly make bitcoins 21mill coin ledger limit become much much more. making bitcoin less rare due to the fact that people can hoard other crappy coins as part of the same app..

bitcoin needs to stay as a single ledger with only 21mill coins.. if people want alts.. buy them separately without ruining bitcoins ledger

I am not sure you understand the reason and idea behind sidechains. They are the solution to Bitcoin bloat and the holy grail to scalability. It wont be altcoins, it will be a way to mitigate the blot of transactions for everyone.

There is something called micropayments in bitcoinj, ironically made by Mike Hearn, and is a very good proposal and solution to handling micropayments in order to NOT bloat the blockchain itself.

If you think every coffee purchase on the planet will be directly stored in the blockchain, you have not understood the basic principles behind data storage and data transfer. It simply wont happen in a decentralized manner, and proposing 20MB blocks is moving away from decentralization into centralizing the entire structure into the hands of a few data centers than can afford to run full nodes.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months.

no, it takes 6 months to 2 year for professional to develop infrastructure and software to build sidechains.
Bitcoin network must answer with proportional result to a regulary increase of transactions.

sidechain are to professional payment monitoring ... and commission rely on immediat cash converter job (bitpay, coinbase, etcs ...).

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 09:56:27 AM

Alright, we have less than 12 months.

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months. Can we at least WAIT to see what that does? If they still dont solve our problem, at least to some significant extend, I will switch side.

blockstream is not bitcoin.. its a totally new chain that not only mutes the argument of databloat as it not only has to handle 1chain, but multiple chains.. but alsois just profiting the sidechain owners who premine the hell out of it.

i would rather bitcoin continue with less data limits preventing expansions.. rather that having 20 different altcoins premined and attached to bitcoin so that greedy people like lukejr, gmaxwell and wuille can sell the premine for bitcoins..

imagine 20 altcoins all attached to one app. the databloat will exceed what gavin proposes, of just having bitcoin.. but it looks like you and hund have been sniffing the magicdust supplied by greedy people and ignored the benefits of just concentrating on a bitcoin only blockchain ledger.

blockstream would suddenly make bitcoins 21mill coin ledger limit become much much more. making bitcoin less rare due to the fact that people can hoard other crappy coins as part of the same app..

bitcoin needs to stay as a single ledger with only 21mill coins.. if people want alts.. buy them separately without ruining bitcoins ledger

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on May 31, 2015, 09:42:40 AM

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 08:19:21 AM

Gavin and Hearns proposal for increasing the blocksize to 20MB is the ultimate way to destroy Bitcoin. For anyone that has the need to follow a "leader" and refuses to understand what the outcome of increasing the blocksize is, please read on.

Increasing the blocksize to 20MB does not solve anything in the long term. Neither Gavin nor Hearn can answer what they will do if the blocksize needs to be raised beyond 20MB at a later stage. Right now, what we are getting is a lazy fix, when we dont even need it.

Gavin has been screaming about the blocksize is reaching is maxiumum and that we need to increase the size of the blocks. Why we need to raise it TWENTY FOLD is not something Gavin can answer. Neither can he answer what he will do when 20MB becomes to little again. Raising it to 200MB?

Another huge problem about raising the block size is that the current amount of nodes we are having will start dropping even faster. People have been pointing out how we have lost nodes in the recently. Everyone agrees that this is because the blocksize is becoming too large. Now we are voting to increase the blocksize 20 times more?

The question here is: WHAT do you propose? What is the solution then, if not raising the blocksize? Thats what anti blocksize upgrade guys cannot answer as well.

Look at this shit and answer:

The fuck are we going to do when we reach the limit?
What can we do to avoid the fork? I agree that is a shitty workaround and a fork is not desired, but what can we do about it?

Alright, we have less than 12 months.

Something tells me we have a full working solution via Blockstream/sidechains in less than 3 months. Can we at least WAIT to see what that does? If they still dont solve our problem, at least to some significant extend, I will switch side.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 08:19:21 AM

Gavin and Hearns proposal for increasing the blocksize to 20MB is the ultimate way to destroy Bitcoin. For anyone that has the need to follow a "leader" and refuses to understand what the outcome of increasing the blocksize is, please read on.

Increasing the blocksize to 20MB does not solve anything in the long term. Neither Gavin nor Hearn can answer what they will do if the blocksize needs to be raised beyond 20MB at a later stage. Right now, what we are getting is a lazy fix, when we dont even need it.

Gavin has been screaming about the blocksize is reaching is maxiumum and that we need to increase the size of the blocks. Why we need to raise it TWENTY FOLD is not something Gavin can answer. Neither can he answer what he will do when 20MB becomes to little again. Raising it to 200MB?

Another huge problem about raising the block size is that the current amount of nodes we are having will start dropping even faster. People have been pointing out how we have lost nodes in the recently. Everyone agrees that this is because the blocksize is becoming too large. Now we are voting to increase the blocksize 20 times more?

The question here is: WHAT do you propose? What is the solution then, if not raising the blocksize? Thats what anti blocksize upgrade guys cannot answer as well.

Look at this shit and answer:

The fuck are we going to do when we reach the limit?
What can we do to avoid the fork? I agree that is a shitty workaround and a fork is not desired, but what can we do about it?

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on May 31, 2015, 08:41:16 AM

http://gavinandresen.ninja/does-more-transactions-necessarily-mean-more-centralized

Oh My GOD ... i want this extension .ninja on my site Grin

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 08:45:35 AM

franky1 - So your solution is to increase it 20x, but you are at the same time saying it wont be needed? That is the most riddiculous statement I have ever heard. You are prepared to allow something to break, yet realizing we wont need the 20x increase?

is better to have something and not need it than need it and not have it, when then it is needed, it's an aspect of foresight

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: hund on May 31, 2015, 09:02:17 AM

Quote from: franky1 on May 31, 2015, 08:52:05 AM

the only question that really counts is if bitcoin will continue on the current github of developers or the code being controlled by just 2 people on hearns server

Slightly wrong. It doesn't matter who controls the github. It matters which github people choose to follow.

If Todd and Wuille and the others start their own github without gavin today i'll follow that!

and what if todd and wuille have a closed github and they put in malicious code purely to profit themselves.
it should never be about what name has management of the hub.. it should ALWAYS be about what code is implimented and how diverse the access to the code is.

the 20mb is not an issue. financially, functionally or theoretically.. the issue you have is that the fork could become centralised and owned by just 2 individuals.
to me if i had the choice of:
only todd/wuille
only gavin/hearn
200 coders in a democratized system

id choose the 200 coders

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

Exactly, Bitcoin is open source! But right now that is being questioned via Gavin's attempt.

Gavin, when you gave the reigns of Bitcoin to Wladimir, you said you were going to work on the scaling solution. This is more than 6 months ago. Did you really in the past 6 months conclude that the scaling problem should be solved by nudging up the blocksize 20 times?

hund

member

Activity: 130

Merit: 10

Quote from: franky1 on May 31, 2015, 08:52:05 AM

the only question that really counts is if bitcoin will continue on the current github of developers or the code being controlled by just 2 people on hearns server

Slightly wrong. It doesn't matter who controls the github. It matters which github people choose to follow.

If Todd and Wuille and the others start their own github without gavin today i'll follow that!

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

@franky1

hund

member

Activity: 130

Merit: 10

Gavin be like: "Let's destroy it now. It's urgent!"

JackH

sr. member

Activity: 381

Merit: 255

Quote from: hund on May 31, 2015, 08:52:53 AM

Listen to this instead to some random crap from some senior/hero/legendary members bought accounts

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

This account is not purchased buddy, it has been mine since 29 May, 2011. And why do you need to blindly follow your "heroes" in order to make a decission? The rationaly is there regardless of whom is posting this, ie. nodes WILL drop off if they start becoming data centers for all the transactions in the world. Welcome to centralization, you just ruined Bitcoin.

hund

member

Activity: 130

Merit: 10

Listen to this instead to some random crap from some senior/hero/legendary members bought accounts

https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-217-the-bitcoin-block-size-discussion

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: JackH on May 31, 2015, 08:45:35 AM

franky1 - So your solution is to increase it 20x, but you are at the same time saying it wont be needed? That is the most riddiculous statement I have ever heard. You are prepared to allow something to break, yet realizing we wont need the 20x increase?

i never said it was needed as in urgently today.. but no one can say how soon bitcoin transactions will increase to a point that the 1mb is not enough.

that said it logical to have "potential" space to cope with any sudden change, rather then waiting for tx's to bottleneck and then rush to change things.
EG
many people are glad they have an overdraft on their cards. not because they need the extra cash, but when a emergency comes up and they have done too many transactions that month, they still have a financial buffer.

many people dont need 16gb of ram every second. but at times of the day they want to play a 4k resolution game.. its there

many people dont need a 6 pack of beer all day everyday, but at times when they want to get drunk, they are glad theres a beer waiting for them in the fridge.

the only question that really counts is if bitcoin will continue on the current github of developers or the code being controlled by just 2 people on hearns server

Topic: The question Gavin and Hearn cannot answer (Read 1468 times)