Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 17560. (Read 26713358 times)

One of these is not like the other.

And why would you speak of anything but mining? Increased hardware demands won't affect regular wallet users.

It's only the people with the cheapest electricity that make the most money. They are the miners

Hardware has almost nothing to do with full nodes because of the 1MB blocksize. If it were more, then I don't know if that would be the case.

Larger blocks require more resources which harms decentralization.

I'm not speaking of mining.

Also, to play your game.

It's already the people who pay the highest fees that get fast confirmations. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

yeah, but only one has been vetted, approved, tested and then gone live.   That is seg wit.   The other is an attempt at a hostile take over (BU's version of a blocksize limit increase). 

Don't be trying to give them some kind of false equivalencies to these two matters that are currently on the table, because at this point, the two are not equivalent. 

If a blocksize limit increase (whether BU or some other variation) could be vetted, approved, tested and then go live, then it would be closer to being equivalent to seg wit, no?

Jihad Jihan Wu lost his PR ALT-coin battle.

~1GB

Nobody has argued to go from current to full global mainstream adoption in a single bound, except opponents of growth. And we still will have to grow at some point. Arguably now, and if not now then very soon.

Well, we do have to take one step at a time, and surely if it seems prudent to increase the blocksize limit, then I am sure that there will be some kind of means  to accomplish that, if it seems to be a prudent course of action - whether that is at $1200 or $10k or some other price point that happens to coincide with the need to increase the blocksize limit..

It's already the people with the best hardware that make the most money. This is part of the design. It is not a flaw or anything new.

Ok smart ass, so please calculate for us what block size limit is needed to support Visa-level TPS (2000/s) so that the "mainstream" will come flooding in to use bitcoin instead of their Visa card.

Then come back and argue how with that newly calculated blocksize limit we will easily maintain mining decentralization across all mining nodes.

Go on, I'll wait.

Sure there are always going to be people on the margins who decide for themselves based on a variety of factors what to use and what to do, but does not mean that bitcoin cannot handle more users and will not adapt to more users.  The mempool is getting spam attacked, and increasing the blocksize limits is not going to stop spam attacks.




Who cares what I want.  You are describing what you want.  I adapt to whatever is taking place.  If the blocksize limit gets increased, I adapt.  I am not saying what I want.  I am saying what is.  You are saying what you want, and that is you want the blocksize limit to increase, and I say bullshit.. not needed.  If you get your way, then I don't really give a shit, but at the moment, you are just petitioning a change.  and I am saying that your proposed change does not seem to be necessary.





BTC seems to be doing pretty good, and a lot of growth taking place all over the world (that seems to be part of the reason for the ongoing upwards price pressures).


What kind of transaction are you trying to accomplish that is not reasonable?  Are others trying to accomplish those kinds of unreasonable transactions, too?  They can use some other means, or is bitcoin the only thing that will work for them?  Why does bitcoin need to serve that purpose at this time? 

your assertion seems a bit fantastical or maybe an attempt to too much prescription about what you wished bitcoin was rather than what bitcoin is, no?





I don't think that you are providing actual facts.  You describe security as a network effect?  Those are at least two concepts.

Bitcoin does have security and bitcoin has a variety of network effects.. plus bitcoin has the other features that I mentioned earlier an secure immutable decentralized ability to transfer and store value.  You gotta name some coin that you believe has what I just described, rather than it is aspiring towards such.  Bitcoin already has it.  Hello?  Those are different points to have something and to aspire to it, no?







You need to zoom out.  Bitcoin is doing quite well, even if prices bounce between $800 and $1400 for a while, there continues to be very decent and ongoing upwards price pressures that causes me to believe that an upwards break out of the the range is more likely than a downwards breakout..... but time will tell.. we cannot look at price in really short increments, otherwise we may miss some of the points.

Since you can't seem to figure it out on your own, I'll give you a hint.

When you increase the amount of resources required to accomplish something, less people are able to accomplish it. I'll let you figure out how that affects decentralization.

What about it? What implications are you trying to get at?

RAM requirements due to UTXO set. Bandwidth requirement due to increased data per block and increased historical chain size. Storage requirements due to increased block chain size. Processing requirements due to the need to verify more transactions.

if segwit didnt do this weird blocksize incress thing, you wouldn't be so confused.
yes we need both.
ultimately any blockchain that does not do both WILL FAIL
LN requires bigger blocks to function as a TX layer for a sizeable amount of TX's.

Water is wet.

Then explain at least some of the downside to bigger blocks, if you actually believe what you say. Simply making assertions is not enough.

Resources exist and have costs.

There are a lot of crazy people on this thread lately... don't bother with them.

But 2mb maybe would be a good idea after surpassing the 10.000$ threshold.