Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 16239. (Read 26609889 times)

not if B2X becomes the main chain mane ha

Great. So you have your coin BCH, which you say is the one. You have your 8MB large blocks.  And you have your little tribe of supporters. You should be happy. But for some reason you aren't. Because you keep coming back, trying to argue for more changes to Bitcoin. Trying to change Bitcoin into BCH.

So again. what . the fk. is. YOUR. problem?

no the original troll was to disrupt LN and make it obsolete by increasing the blocksize..2mb blocks would piss on their parade weee

I was just correcting a flawed assertion by JJG. After the predictable pile-on, this is where we arrive. The only _problem_ per se was the insistence that larger blocks serve no purpose - where demonstrably, they do.

See here's the interesting thing. In such a widely known surveillance country as America (see NSA spying program), and in an environment of proven govt/corp whistle blowing, false flags and hoaxes, and outright scamming the people (Wells Fargo, JP Morgan, etc.), no Average Joe in America EVER questions if any of these supposed personal information 'hacks' could ever be cover for an inside job. Or in conjunction with or at the request of the IRS, other Alphabet agencies, Govt agencies, etc.

I mean, what great plausible deniability ("Honest! We were hacked from the outside! It had to be the Chinese or the Russians!"). They could literally be just handing the information over to some Alphabet agency or foreign govt, and no one would ever know otherwise.

It could centralize if everyone uses one service. LN will be centralized in the same way that MtGox was the only Bitcoin exchange for several years. And then it wasn't.

I mean...normally I see the wisdom of not attributing to malice that which can be explained by mere stupidity, but, am I to believe that decision makers at that level are actually that retarded??

Which leaves it as an act of communication; they are expressing their contempt for us, rubbing our noses in our powerlessness.

"what'cha gonna do huh?  lol  what'cha gonna do?"

Hahahahahaha

We need BIGGER blocks like we need another hole in our head....


Which we don't... at least I don't.   

Yeah, but it's FREE

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!

It's not bullshit.  Show some evidence if you think that there is some kind of problem?  We are talking about spam attacks, and when there are no spam attacks we have all kinds of extras space and low fees and fast transaction times.

So... you can say "bullshit" all you want, when the fact of the matter is that you large blocker nutjobs are the ones who do not have evidence to justify that any change in the blocksize limit is actually needed now or in the near future.
 

We get there like we have been  getting there, with incremental changes and improvements and development and yet continuing to grow, including segwit and lightning network in the future.. and ongoing developments and ongoing adoption..   Has been good and continues to be good, except for the multiple disgruntled attackers that have to be fended off on an ongoing basis with their misinformation and FUD spreading.
 

We do not go from .1% of the world adoption to 100% world adoption, there is a transition period, so we are a long fucking way from 100% anytime in the near future... it is called incremental adoption... even if it seems like exponential, it is not going to happen in the next few years, if that is what you are thinking.
 

I doubt that it is worthy of very much thought, and I doubt that the facts are even accurate... especially once we et a bit more lightning network tools into place...


Your saying it does not make it true, either.
 

Yeah, you talk in a lot of hypotheticals rather than looking at the actual transaction on the blockchain.
 

Yes.  Assume a problem that does not exist, apart from the ongoing spam attacks.

Sure some day down the road we might need to increase the blockchain limit size... does not seem to be an emergency except to figure out ways to battle various ongoing spam attacks, which are likely going to continue, since B-cash is appearing to becoming more and more of a dud and it is likely not worthwhile to direct mining power towards the bcash chain, so those guys want to spend their mining power to attempt to spam bitcoin instead... go figure.   

yea, probably.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand...

the IRS awards none other than Equifax a no bid contract to verify taxpayer identities and help prevent fraud.


I am living in a fucking Kurt Vonnegut novel.


Are they now openly mocking us?

You have your large blocks in BCH. And according to your previous post, BCH is the one true Bitcoin.

So. what. the. fk. is. the. problem. ?

Well, for the calculation I assumed the goal was for everyone to simply own Bitcoin (hence one transaction per person)...

Perhaps this reveals the limits of the design as it currently stands. Technological advances may not always follow a predictable and foreseeable path. Technology may take a long time to be able to accommodate the technical requirements for a truly global Bitcoin network (in the sense that everyone on Earth actively transacts in it). Another coin may be able to achieve it, but maybe not Bitcoin as it is currently designed. It may take a long time for us to get there...

I also trust the developers. Especially Core. I trust their cautionary/conservative approach. The "bigger is better" approach that many are eager to take may have unforeseeable side-effects on the Bitcoin system. Sure, technology will provide new capabilities and we should use them. But we should do so extremely carefully.

This. Your reply came while I was writing mine.

I understand, and you have a point. Opening a channel for each person on earth isn't reasonably possible at the current rates. But that is only the ultimate goal. How many people have VISA today? At the moment, it is more important to expand the network cautiously with the means we have. L2 will be a formidable tool for this, with micropayments and all that. When Average Joe gets used to pay bitcoin at Starbucks, adoption will be so wide in the "rich west" of the world that BTC will be unstoppable.

I trust the developers - I'm not talking about Core only. Third-party L3 solutions could be piggybacked on top of L2, for example. Hardware progress might give us the bandwidth and storage improvements btc needs to be ubiquitous and censor-resistant, so a non-contentious blocksize increase might be much more feasible than it is today. But we can't possibly figure out exactly what the future will be like. We have more than enough on our hands, given what BTC is now. Let us keep it safe and resilient.

I've been around the incessant march of technology long enough to know the it will indeed solve the issue in the long term. There may be some points where demand outstrips technical limits. But now is not such a time, and neither is the long term. LN may be am important component of the ultimate solution set. But it is in no way sufficient. There is no technology proposed that eliminates this fundamental bottleneck. Block size needs to be increased. Period.


No. It absolutely does not. You are not yet processing what I wrote. For a person who does not yet have Bitcoin, at least two on-chain transactions are required. One to get Bitcoin into his possession, and another to make his one and only lifetime channel funding (how likely is this limit?). Now, it is possible -- however implausible -- that the initial purchase of Bitcoin might be combined with others in a single transaction that can take advantage of Segwit. However, it is impossible for his channel funding transaction to be reduced in block consumption via segwit. The smallest it can be is one input and one output. So that latter set of transactions (the channel fundings) is a minimum of 30 years at 1MB. Plus whatever it takes to get the Bitcoin into peoples hands to begin with (another 30 years in the natural transaction/person case).