Time To Grow Up - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Klestin

hero member

Activity: 493

Merit: 500

Quote from: dachnik on September 04, 2015, 08:25:39 AM

1) Bitcoin XT
Allows the block size to increase exponentially to the point, where home-based nodes will no longer be able to participate in consensus.

I don't agree with that assessment, for four reasons:

1) Technology continues to improve. e.g. $100 worth of hard drive space 15 years ago costs about 17 cents today.
2) Block size cap != block size. The cap is 1MB now, yet we have no 1MB caps. The blocks will increase as needed to store the transactions that we have. Assumptions of 100% filled blocks are baseless.
3) If the increase based on transactions is still judged too quick, the miners can always choose to include only some of the transactions, based on size, priority, fee, their mood of the day, etc.
4) BIP 101 is not the end-all be-all. It's a best-guess shot in the dark. If it needs to be adjusted, it can be. It can even be adjusted down with a soft fork.

Hearn and Gavin made a mistake by releasing XT with BIP 101 with a 75% activation rule. They made a further mistake by including unrelated changes in XT. We should not let these issues confuse the examination of the block cap increase BIP alternatives. The simplest of the alternatives that actually has a chance to meet demand is BIP 101.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: brg444 on September 04, 2015, 10:40:19 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Lauda on September 04, 2015, 09:08:56 AM

Quote from: kelsey on September 04, 2015, 08:56:09 AM

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.

You don't think they'll be welcomed back with open arms do you?

Face it, Mike & Gavin are Bitcoin history at this point, a footnote at that.

Caution: Don't count either one of them out. Hearn in particular is like some sort of a zombie from a horror show who has kept popping up for the 4 years that I've been following things with one shitty idea after another about how to destroy Bitcoin. Just like in real life, many people have either very poor memories or are to lazy to research history. Or are wierd shill-like creatures which at this point I find a pretty compelling hypothesis to explain some of the participants here.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

The answer is straight forward... everyone know the block size must be increased... is this necessary now? Probably not yet... but some people create a perception that it is,

by doing all these fake tests to scare people. During these fake tests { I'd rather call it attacks } a simulated small scale "mainstream" scenario is fabricated and people think

this would be the norm soon. {Nobody knows this for sure} The two forks enjoy this fake scenario, because both of them have hidden agenda's for pushing for these forks.

This whole situation could have been prevented, if they simply bumped the block size a little, without all the added bells n whistles. Roll Eyes

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on September 05, 2015, 12:05:21 PM

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction Wink

Why?

The masses cannot use Bitcoin for buying coffee (it simply can't scale for that) and even the increased blocksize idea in XT would not scale up to the same size as something like Visa for many years (so even if XT became the main chain it won't be replacing the current payment systems for many years if ever).

So the only txs that most are going to make are going to be larger ones where 1 USD per tx might not be much at all (especially compared to something like Western Union).

The most logical area that Bitcoin can *own* is remittance and anyone thinking otherwise is just not looking at the reality.

I think it makes the most sense to first take on remittance and get rid of the ridiculous fees that are having to be paid currently in that area (how about we solve that first before worrying about people buying their coffee with Bitcoin?).

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Lauda on September 04, 2015, 09:08:56 AM

Quote from: kelsey on September 04, 2015, 08:56:09 AM

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.

iam pretty sure people will think again when they have to pay 1 USD for each transaction Wink

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: CIYAM on September 04, 2015, 12:36:50 PM

It just shows what has happened to this forum that I see the same non-technical guys arguing the same stuff in numerous topics (with no technical guys even bothering to join in).

So whatever side you take about the situation what you won't find here is any real technical discussion about it (the ad sig campaigns have probably made sure of that).

+1000 to this. I guess it's been that way since 2012 at least, if not earlier.

dachnik

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

Quote from: wearehatetherules on September 04, 2015, 06:30:53 PM

good analysist dude,got some information here.

Quote from: tmltd on September 04, 2015, 04:34:06 PM

A very nice and simple analysis that puts the right perspective to the block size incident.
Well spoken, I hope the devs are not deaf.

Thanks!

wearehatetherules

full member

Activity: 195

Merit: 100

★YoBit.Net★ 200+ Coins Exchange & Dice

good analysist dude,got some information here.

tmltd

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

A very nice and simple analysis that puts the right perspective to the block size incident.
Well spoken, I hope the devs are not deaf.

dachnik

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

Quote from: CIYAM on September 04, 2015, 12:36:50 PM

It just shows what has happened to this forum that I see the same non-technical guys arguing the same stuff in numerous topics (with no technical guys even bothering to join in).

So whatever side you take about the situation what you won't find here is any real technical discussion about it (the ad sig campaigns have probably made sure of that).

It's not that much of a technical discussion.
The limit ultimately determines the size of the consensus network.
If nodes cannot keep up, they will be pushed out.

Whether we want to keep our favorite toy or let it slip out of our hands is really up to us.

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

It just shows what has happened to this forum that I see the same non-technical guys arguing the same stuff in numerous topics (with no technical guys even bothering to join in).

So whatever side you take about the situation what you won't find here is any real technical discussion about it (the ad sig campaigns have probably made sure of that).

dachnik

member

Activity: 64

Merit: 10

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 09:41:34 AM

Quote from: dachnik on September 04, 2015, 09:22:12 AM

By the way, I don't think that devs' intentions are anything else than good, ...

agreed, but good intentions, never did anyone any good.
i'll take a bad solutions over good intentions anyday.

Quote from: brg444 on September 04, 2015, 10:40:19 AM

You don't think they'll be welcomed back with open arms do you?
Face it, Mike & Gavin are Bitcoin history at this point, a footnote at that.

With suggested 4-year manual steps of block size increase, we might as well approximate the curve suggested in BIP101, but only for as long as it serves the interests of Bitcoin.

Who decides what those interests are? We do.
The ones who populate the network with full nodes.

Quote from: maokoto on September 04, 2015, 12:01:58 PM

OP is right. There should not be all this fuss. Just raise the block and move on. As I understand it, blockstream could be also implemented on bigger blocks.

Correct.
But only if it's shown to not significantly shift the incentives structure, that has proven to work so well for the original Bitcoin.

maokoto

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

✪ NEXCHANGE | BTC, LTC, ETH & DOGE ✪

OP is right. There should not be all this fuss. Just raise the block and move on. As I understand it, blockstream could be also implemented on bigger blocks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: dachnik on September 04, 2015, 08:25:39 AM

2) Bitcoin Core
Wants to artificially cap the block size in order to popularize sidechains solution, which by design introduces systemic risks to a single transparent unified ledger, as it intends to take most of bitcoins out of circulation. "Bitcoin Core Released" anagrams to "deliBerate CoeRcions". That doesn't sound very good, does it?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Lauda on September 04, 2015, 09:08:56 AM

Quote from: kelsey on September 04, 2015, 08:56:09 AM

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

I concur. If people stay with Core (a solution is implemented), the XT will be forgotten along with Gavin and Hearn.

You don't think they'll be welcomed back with open arms do you?

Face it, Mike & Gavin are Bitcoin history at this point, a footnote at that.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Bit_Happy

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1040

A Great Time to Start Something!

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: dachnik on September 04, 2015, 09:22:12 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 08:38:19 AM

... a jr. member makes more sense than the devs. ...

"a plaque and platinum status is whack if you're not the baddest" Wink

By the way, I don't think that devs' intentions are anything else than good, but their judgments may have been overshadowed.
A few millions in cash will do that to pretty much everyone in our demographic.

So, they are welcome to finally see the truth and help propel Bitcoin onto the next stage of evolution.

agreed, but good intentions, never did anyone any good.

i'll take a bad solutions over good intentions anyday.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: kelsey on September 04, 2015, 08:56:09 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 08:52:45 AM

Quote from: kelsey on September 04, 2015, 08:49:32 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 08:49:08 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: adamstgBit on September 04, 2015, 08:38:19 AM

its really sad when a jr. member makes more sense then the devs. a dead simple to solution, temporary? sure, if you consider fixed for years (aka the foreseeable future) temporary...

come on devs, think for 1 hour then change one line.

not a sad as a legendary member backing the killing of bitcoin by an alt.

who's that?

my bad misread n deleted

k,

if anything is going to kill bitcoin it will be an array of forks forced out by the core dev team's indecision. XT was a warning, time is running out.

don't completely disagree, but don't see such an immediate rush needed.

but if XT is adopted there will be a war.

if core stays, XT will be a distant bad memory very quickly.

i think everyone can live with being ~12 months away from constantly hitting the block limit on every single block. but we could see some new blockchain application which pushes us up to this point much faster, at that point core dev needs to do something fast or forks will come, then suddenly "what is bitcoin" becomes ambiguous, if there is a fork 2 version of bitcoin have ~50/50 hashing power, you might think price would cut in half, i think fungibility, and ease of use would go down the drain along with price. now imagine 3 bitcoins! what a mess!

Topic: Time To Grow Up - page 2. (Read 2936 times)