Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19803. (Read 26610061 times)

You mean you disagree with DeathandTaxes on some issue, or that they scammed someone?

Wow this is so dull I had to go the casino and got much better action in the poker room playing 2/5 holdem.

Next 24hrs are critical.

That thread is chocked full of scumbags. How funny! Even cablepair got his scummy name included at the end. It's really interesting how all those characters that were worshiped in 2011, like DnT, are shit now.

Isn't a public ledger grand

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1059272

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJkec-CQRM

Isn't a public ledger grand

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1059272

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJkec-CQRM

Isn't a public ledger grand

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1059272

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlJkec-CQRM

Sorry, Guys. You can have high prices or you can have high transaction fees, but you can't have both. 
Just hold the price above $400 until I can get my old coins out of cold storage.

I'm outie.

First of all, my opinion: I'm in favor of increasing the block size limit in a hard fork, but very much against removing the limit entirely. Bitcoin is a consensus of its users, who all agreed (or will need to agree) to a very strict set of rules that would allow people to build global decentralized payment system. I think very few people understand a forever-limited block size to be part of these rules.

However, with no limit on block size, it effectively becomes miners who are in control of _everyone_'s block size. As a non-miner, this is not something I want them to decide for me. Perhaps the tragedy of the commons can be avoided, and long-term rational thinking will kick in, and miners can be trusted with choosing an appropriate block size. But maybe not, and if just one miner starts creating gigabyte blocks, while all the rest agrees on 10 MiB blocks, ugly block-shunning rules will be necessary to avoid such blocks from filling everyone's hard drive (yes, larger block's slower relay will make them unlikely to be accepted, but it just requires one lucky fool to succeed...).

I think retep raises very good points here: the block size (whether voluntarily or enforced) needs to result in a system that remains verifiable for many. What those many are will probably change gradually. Over time, more and more users will probably move to SPV nodes (or more centralized things like e-wallet sites), and that is fine. But if we give up the ability for non-megacorp entities to be able to verify the chain, we might as well be using those a central clearinghouse. There is of course wide spectrum between "I can download the entire chain on my phone" and "Only 5 bank companies in the world can run a fully verifying node", but I think it's important that we choose what point in between there is acceptable.

My suggestion would be a one-time increase to perhaps 10 MiB or 100 MiB blocks (to be debated), and after that an at-most slow exponential further growth. This would mean no for-eternity limited size, but also no way for miners to push up block sizes to the point where they are in sole control of the network. I realize that some people will consider this an arbitrary and unnecessary limit, but others will probably consider it dangerous already. In any case, it's a compromise and I believe one will be necessary.


Then I think you misunderstand what a hard fork entails. The only way a hard fork can succeed is when _everyone_ agrees to it. Developers, miners, merchants, users, ... everyone. A hard fork that succeeds is the ultimate proof that Bitcoin as a whole is a consensus of its users (and not just a consensus of miners, who are only given authority to decide upon the order of otherwise valid transactions).

Realize that Bitcoin's decentralization only comes from very strict - and sometimes arbitrary - rules (why this particular 50/25/12.5 payout scheme, why ECDSA, why only those opcodes in scripts, ...) that were set right from the start and agreed upon by everyone who ever used the system. Were those rules "central planning" too?