Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 73. (Read 157162 times)

The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since that is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.

Moore's law wasn't intended to last forever. However it deals primarily with miniaturization and not direct performance improvement.

SIMD instructions are a fine example of how the same transistors can become much faster in executing calculations. You could be using 4 or 8 clocks to do what you now only need one clock cycle. And if you widen the bits that can fit, you could make it 16.

Unfortunately, we are like ~20 years after mmx, and 15 years after SSE & SSE2, and still most compilers are very shitty in taking advantage of the extended instruction sets and too few people will write assembly to take advantage of faster code execution - let alone for very modern instruction sets.

There is a lot of performance right now in our chips that isn't even being used.

I believe there'll come a time, perhaps as early as the early 2020's, when code compilers will be AI-driven. Meaning they will be able to think and act like humans (or better) in applying code optimization, where code can be optimized and paralleled. They will be like ...sentient interpreters. You just give them the code and they'll give you the best machine code for your hardware.. and as they evolve, they will not even need code but specifications of what to do, how they will be controlled, etc.

When this happens, the performance gains will dwarf any technological gains because the technological gains have been neutralized for years due to ...Wirth's law and bloated software, so this trend will reverse at full speed. At that moment we'll have made a leap of performance that may be equivalent to ~10 years of processor advances, but also other hardware advances as well. Compression is a key factor in increasing memory, storage and transmission capacities but it is typically unused due to the processing costs. If compression and decompression can be simultaneously high ratio and fast, at that point it is worth it.

Having said that about the future, we should remember that a lot of processing power is left on the table right now, whether in CPU instruction sets or even GPUs with their thousands of cores.

Improvements such as whatever is popular on Consider.it?   

It was. Well, that plus a nice guard against malevolently-created blocks. A couple of releases ago. But there have been improvements since. Do try to keep up.

There is a technical limit that reputable engineers are saying us.

Your words and opinions mean nothing, either you have data supporting your opinions or you are just talking to yourself.

---

The technical limit is artificial, it could be 1.1 mb or 0.8 mb or 1.111 mb, doesnt matter. The point is that the smaller the blocksize the better, because Moore's law is pseudoscience, and all growth functions tent to be logarithmic, not exponential.

While you want an exponentially increasing blocksize, it will fail. But of course you havent checked the data, you are just pulling out ideas from your ass.

Whenever the network does get congested people leave and different use cases are pushed out, demand will stay aligned with the artificial scarcity enforced through the blocksize limit. This process can continue until Bitcoin is not the dominant cryptocurrency anymore, even then you might be able to say that the blocksize never needed to be increased, while cryptocurrencies that are willing to scale will overtake Bitcoin.

Allowing the network to get congested makes transacting on the Bitcoin network more expensive and less reliable, this is not good for adoption especially considering that we could just increase the blocksize to two megabytes, most alt-coins already have far greater transactional throughput when compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin does need to be able to compete.

Almost exponential transaction volume growth until recently, because we have hit the blocksize limit. Watching the alt-coin market rise while Bitcoin stagnates.

900 Unconfirmed now, it's a very fluid network now.

Looks like if nobody is attacking the network, it all works fine.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-excluding-chains-longer-than-100?showDataPoints=false×pan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=

Bitcoin can scale and if it does not scale then it will simply be out competed and obsolesced by alternative cryptocurrencies that can and are willing to scale. Since the security, value and utility of cryptocurrencies increase with scale, it is this virtuous cycle that was also the original vision for Bitcoin, this is the vision that Core is now diverging from.

The ad hominem attacks against the people behind the different implementations are irrelevant, what matters is what is in the code itself and Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have all of the features that Core 0.12 has plus more, it is the nature of open source. The people behind Core might be great coders but I think their conception of the economics and governance of Bitcoin is wrong. Through the choice of multiple implementations the participants of the network get to choose which path Bitcoin takes. I would hope that the economic majority within Bitcoin will choose to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly as was always intended, since otherwise I suspect Bitcoin might become the myspace of cryptocurrency.

I can take this further however, if the economic majority does want the blocksize to be increased and it is not increased then I would say that the governance mechanism within Bitcoin is fundamentally flawed, solutions for the problems Bitcoin is experiencing most likely already exists in the alternative cryptocurrencies, innovations such as incentivized full nodes and self funding blockchains might be important in that regard.

It is still to early to tell whether this first real experiment in decentralized governance will function the way we hope it will. Bitcoin might be dying because of this existential crisis but I am confident that the more it dies so to speak, the more pressure will build for it to change. This is part of the game theory underpinning the governance of Bitcoin. I just hope more of us come to this realization before Bitcoin loses its position as the dominant cryptocurrency.

So of course, most of the comments on that article on its website are along the lines of, "Blockstream is the evil empire!" Fantastic. No arguments you make or facts you present can breach that wall of ignorance. Blockstream people like gmaxwell can post ad infinitum saying things like:

But it doesn't matter, because in their heads, Blockstream is still somehow in control of and scheming to destroy everything.

Well i do hope the developers can focus on what they do best.
Developing features, instead of participating in heavy debates which lead to nothing.

The problem with the block size is something that have been addressed a few times but needs a lot of time 'developing.'

Classic formula for success:

1. Slow down development with debates and drama
2. Complain about slow development
3.
4. Profit!

Source: http://coinjournal.net/coo-samson-mow-btccs-support-of-bitcoin-core-is-a-no-brainer/
At least some people get it right.

---

---

But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit   

That's how self moderated threads function. The author is allowed to delete any post for whatever reason.

This is far too logical for the DataCenterCoin people.

You see, yes the "Classic" people could be up on something, I feel that some Core devs may be corrupted, there may be something out there, something to stall or slow down developement. But what am I supposed to do about it? Cry that Bitcoin is corrupted? Shill nonstop brigade for an alternative dev team?

Especially when all two of Classic developers both seem terminally retarded?

It's simpler to call out which one of Core devs is corrupt or slows down developement, how do they do this than spend years trolling around on custom forum.

God I miss MPOE-PR. She'd be all over this thread explaining in great detail how stupid some of you are. She had the patience, stamina and resolve to do it and I just don't have it anymore.

Didn't expect to read this of you.

You gotta be shittin me. Andresen gets more fucked up and out of touch with reality every day. So much for "we're only changing this one itty bitty thing, I promise" with his fingers crossed behind his back.