Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 119. (Read 157163 times)

Yes, suppose that I'm an average people without enough IT expertise, the only thing I can understand is that 2MB is 100% larger than 1MB, just like my 2 GB hard drive is 100% larger than my 1GB hard drive. From my point of view, if 1MB blocks already worked for 7 years fine without being full, there is almost no reason why 2MB will not work since that is a very small change, given everything else unchanged, it is very easy for me to evaluate the risk involved

However, if someone presented me a complex solution that has never been on live traffic and say this will scale bitcoin similar to 2MB increase, then there are just too much change and too much variables that I have no way to evaluate their risk

Then as you described, I can look for advice from experts and seek the guidance from "Authorities". But you know that most of the bitcoin user come to bitcoin is just because they don't trust any centralized authorities since power always corrupts. Should they trust a group of devs instead of FED? And what if these devs can not reach agreements? The reason people support 2MB is simply not because they trust Gavin or Jeff, they trust nobody, they only trust their own judgement, especially when they had millions of dollars invested

This phenomenon of simple math over complex scheme has always been witnessed at various IT products: People usually prefer a camera with larger pixel count, so the company focus on improving the image quality instead of pixel count all have failed due to lower sale of their products. Foveon sensor for example is the only sensor that can record all the color information at each pixel, but unfortunately most of the consumer only know how to count numbers

wait we are not understanding each other i think, if right now the % of block filled completely is 23%, with a greater adoption, which means a greater number of transactions per block, it will remain the same, 23% of the block will be filled, so it is correct

but since there are more users using bitcoin, it mean that in those 23% of the block filled completely(blocks will be bigger here) there will be more transactions stuck, so more whine from "average joe"

this is not the % of transactions inside the filled block, but % of the filled block itself... i hope it's clear know

There is still this one-size-fit-all problem, e.g. it costs the same to do large transactions as well as micro transactions, since the fee is not percentage based but per transaction based

This is similar to: The airline ticket price is the same for everyone, because it must suit the poorest people who want to travel, so it must drop the ticket price to the same as bus or subway

You're wrong again. In that case the percentage would rise, else there would not be an increased delay. If the percentage doesn't increase that means that the number of transactions has stagnated or became smaller.
I'm still uncertain how your lack of understanding of Math is relevant to Bitcoin Classic?

Of course it is 1 MB (technically not exactly 1 MB but close), we've recently had a 976.4 kB block.

Which means that we are fine for now.

---

---

Update:
I give up and have put Amph back on ignore.

also about the 23%, you misunderstood the thing as usual, i did not mean that there will be a greater %, but that the same percentage, would be noticed more, because there will be more users, that will use bitcoin with a greater adoption

so you will have more people complaining about the slowest transaction, and delay,not good, so yes 23% will be a in issue

and anyway 23% of future bigger block is equal to more transactions being stuck than 23% of current block, you know...


i'm talking instead about the effective space that can be filled, and again it's not 1mb

So far the mempool has not shown any abnormal growth, comparing with the spam attack during September. I think if we have the same level of mempool size like we had in September, then many nodes will either become highly streesed or lift the relay fee

You're the one who's not following anything. I don't care what is within the block. I'm talking about saturation as in used space in comparison to empty space/total space. If we are talking about 1 MB then saturation is definitely not around 0.7MB.

I'm not talking about maximum saturation. However, one is wrong to say that the network is having problems right now (as shown with 23% of blocks being 'possibly' saturated).

You can't have 100% full block unless the mempool is always full, and even if the mempool is always full, there would still be empty blocks due to SPV mining (Miners start to mine empty blocks immediately when they receive a new block, they don't want to waste their hash power waiting for the previous block to finish verifying, so the new block must contain only one coinbase transaction because it does not know yet which transactions in mempool should be included)

you're not following as usual, what have to do the fact that sigwit is not implemented with the whole stauration thing? you think that when it will be implemented the maximum block size at which it can be saturated will be higher? no sense

again it is not up to 1mb, you're wrong, it is 700 maximum as effective size, because you need to add multisig address in the equation, and they consume larger space, i believe you have not read the link that i've posted...

My god I just saw for the first time that retarded voting idea they made for the inclusion or exclusion of features for the Bitcoin protocol.

You officially have no idea what you're talking about and are not making any sense at all. How can it be saturated with SegWit which is not even implemented? 700kB is not saturated as there is more room until 1MB. Admit to being wrong and we can move on.
The worst part of it is that they aren't even real developers, unless you think Peter Rizun will maintain the code. 

again it depend on what type of address are used, with multisig is satured(full) at 670kb already, and only 1.33mb with segwitness, read in that link that i've posted, but i think you know that already

also 23% is not a low amount by any means, that would be a disaster on a large scale, we are lucky that bitcoin is still young and small, and the vast majority of the average joe(which are the real backbone, if ever this thing will be adopted) do not use bitcoin yet

I really hope that many of the statements made by some of the important figures in the Bitcoin space were made in the heat of the moment due to the Hearn's Margin Short Rage Quit and eventually they will realize that ToominCoin has no way to even maintain the code what with their 5 devs vs the legion of Core collaborators.

Definition of saturated:
Of course you need a degree, why else would anyone study any of those fields if Google is sufficient?

I've asked developers on IRC right now. It depends on the usage and the type of transactions. If everyone was using SegWit then the actual increase would equal to 2.5MB (block size increase). Pay-to-pubkey-hash transactions result in a smaller increase,  pay-to-script-hash (P2SH) txs result in a larger increase in block size.

---

---

Here's the updated math from the same person.

are you trying to imply that 23% is a low %? is already a big %, and anyway at 700kb you have already a block which is saturated, there is no 1024kb of free space as many believe, it is actually less when multisig is used, for example...

segwit it's 1.75mb effectively, as average, some say as minimum, i still need to find who is lying here

some reference on the actual capacity increase http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011869.html, we need to consider an increase in usage of multisig in the future, so 2MB it's not the real capacity

and btw i don't need any degree for those stuff really, google is there to help anybody

First Hearn becomes a laughingstock, now Classic.  What a great start to the new year!

Do you have a degree in engineering or any other relevant fields? I'm certain that you don't and thus how are you going to judge what is more important? The network is not saturated at the moment, we occasionally have full blocks and that is it. Out of the last 30 blocks 7 were above 900kB (Blocktrail, blocks: 393849 - 393878). That's only 23% of total blocks mined in this period that could be considered as saturated.

Where did you get this information from?

That makes a lot of sense. Anything under should be considered invalid and an attempt to harm the network.

F2Pool CTO discusses thresholds with core devs: 75% not enough. Wants 95%

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6451#issuecomment-172346251

Tooministas deeply saddened.

Common sense, refreshing

my point is that all those are not as important as the main issue here, you see them as a mandatory now and see the block limit as a bonus, i see all this as the opposite

those are the real bonus and the block limit is the main concern, fixing malleability for example, is not even so important if merchants are not even willing to accept zero confirmation for the time being

also segwit is not even 2mb, but 1.75, i still need to see why they think that 1.75 will suffice for a certain time-frame(which is for obvious reasons smaller than with 2mb), when we have already saturated 1mb