I aggree it's kicking the can down the road. It's a temporary solution to a problem that can become significant next year.
A temporary solution that makes problem it pretends to solve even worse is not a solution at all. It changes this problem from temporary to chronic. 
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 20988. (Read 26611276 times)
August 20, 2015, 09:08:19 AM
August 20, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
August 20, 2015, 08:59:08 AM
After the sell off support for XT fork has evaporated. XT alcoin is basically dead. Mike and Gavin have lost their credibility and will not be accepted as core devs anymore. Question is: can they harm bitcoin in any other way?
You are a pessimist and a pessimist is a not well informed optimist.
If you think Mike and Gravin are idiots then Satoshi is a retard to..
Mike and Gavin are not idiots. They are just tools in the hands of their masters.
August 20, 2015, 08:51:35 AM
Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand?The point is it's still not a very good solution and the bottle neck would not be present without the spam/dust transactions.
It's really that simple.
It's a kick the can down the road situation that amounts to Gavin and Mike throwing a hissy fit.
Do you read the BIP's? Its not like core are sitting there saying 1mb is good forever, just that the solution isn't to suddenly throw 8mb patches into the mix. Further XT is basically Gavin and Mikes coin, are you confident that you want to trust the future of the project to these two dictators who, even if other devs join them on XT, could just do the same thing further down the line when they want to change something else.
None of the BIPs you talk about have been put in effect. That's why we have XT today.
EDIT: And yes, I trust Gavin more than Wladimir.
August 20, 2015, 08:50:26 AM
Do you read the BIP's? Its not like core are sitting there saying 1mb is good forever, just that the solution isn't to suddenly throw 8mb patches into the mix. Further XT is basically Gavin and Mikes coin, are you confident that you want to trust the future of the project to these two dictators who, even if other devs join them on XT, could just do the same thing further down the line when they want to change something else.
Perhaps the time has come to put demarchy into practice. Or, if digital autonomous corporations are in the pipeline, perhaps we can persuade Bitcoin to develop itself. I'm finding the human element in all this exceedingly tiresome.
August 20, 2015, 08:47:16 AM
Classic hurricane force winds trend. Very reliable indicator.
August 20, 2015, 08:38:59 AM
Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand?The point is it's still not a very good solution and the bottle neck would not be present without the spam/dust transactions.
It's really that simple.
It's a kick the can down the road situation that amounts to Gavin and Mike throwing a hissy fit.
Do you read the BIP's? Its not like core are sitting there saying 1mb is good forever, just that the solution isn't to suddenly throw 8mb patches into the mix. Further XT is basically Gavin and Mikes coin, are you confident that you want to trust the future of the project to these two dictators who, even if other devs join them on XT, could just do the same thing further down the line when they want to change something else.
August 20, 2015, 08:36:51 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
Bitcoin is both store of value and a service. And the service has a cost/reward ratio when using it.
My mailman has a certain limit of how many letters or packages he can deliver per hour. However the postal costs prevent companies from mailing millions of spam envelopes, and, indirectly asking my local mailman to deliver 10.000 spam envelopes per hour. Thus snail mail is used when the cost/reward ratio is adequate for the one who is using it.
I need to pay 0.60 euro, for a simple envelope that will be delivered in the same city I live - even if it's the house next door. Why shouldn't I pay a few cents for transferring 10 btc / 2300$ - when a wire transfer would take tens of dollars?
If I want to move around 0.05$, and the fee is too big, it's ok - I won't do it. That's what real life is all about. Compromises. When you want to send money to a friend through paypal (using CC), paypal charges 70 cents, whether it's 1$, or 10$, or 100-1000$. It's apparent that in the case of 1$ you won't even consider it due to the charge.
Likewise, I have a ton of junk that I could be selling in ebay, but I'm not doing it because they are heavy and the cost to mail them is, in many cases, much larger than the item itself. Thus I'm not able to sell these junk stuff because a buyer sees the item at, say, 20$ and postal fees at 30$ or 50$ or 100$ due to weight, so he is like, ok, this is absurd - fuck it. That's because the postal service has limitations while carrying weights that make you pay a lot if you are "overusing" their service. Again: These are compromises we make all the time, why would anyone expect that BTC will do everything without any compromise whatsoever?
So in crypto, in theory, you could make very large block sizes and make a mandatory fee structure that escalates dramatically as it tries to fit in a lot of transactions that are considered above rational capacity - to emulate the postal service. But, still, you won't compete with VISA's 2000tx/sec average because you can't do microtransactions at low cost. Maybe BTC can compete with certain SWIFT and Western Union transactions, cost wise, and then get altcoins, modeled after bitcoin, to do the VISA stuff for microtransactions. Or find another way to do it.
For as long as half the block transactions are dust or near-dust, there's not much rush. Yeah, some companies might try to flood the network to "prove" that we need a bigger block, and then after the block is raised to say 8mb or 20mb, the same companies might be doing similar tests and saying "oh, yes, you see at this rate of increase for a determined attacker like us that is willing to spend XXX BTC per day in fees, it's just a matter of X time for BTC to become unusable for most, or centralized, so we have to find alternatives - and we are now selling to you the new, offchain service that will protect the future of Bitcoin"
People are saying that 1mb promotes interests of offchain companies etc, but wait what'll happen if it ever goes to 8 or 16 or 32mb blocks and these same companies become much more "necessary" to "protect the future of btc".
August 20, 2015, 08:30:55 AM
After the sell off support for XT fork has evaporated. XT alcoin is basically dead. Mike and Gavin have lost their credibility and will not be accepted as core devs anymore. Question is: can they harm bitcoin in any other way?
You are a pessimist and a pessimist is a not well informed optimist.
If you think Mike and Gravin are idiots then Satoshi is a retard to..
August 20, 2015, 08:27:39 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
Bitcoin is both store of value and a service. And the service has a cost/reward ratio when using it.
My mailman has a certain limit of how many letters or packages he can deliver per hour. However the postal costs prevent companies from mailing millions of spam envelopes, and, indirectly asking my local mailman to deliver 10.000 spam envelopes per hour. Thus snail mail is used when the cost/reward ratio is adequate for the one who is using it.
I need to pay 0.60 euro, for a simple envelope that will be delivered in the same city I live - even if it's the house next door. Why shouldn't I pay a few cents for transferring 10 btc / 2300$ - when a wire transfer would take tens of dollars?
If I want to move around 0.05$, and the fee is too big, it's ok - I won't do it. That's what real life is all about. Compromises. When you want to send money to a friend through paypal (using CC), paypal charges 70 cents, whether it's 1$, or 10$, or 100-1000$. It's apparent that in the case of 1$ you won't even consider it due to the charge.
Likewise, I have a ton of junk that I could be selling in ebay, but I'm not doing it because they are heavy and the cost to mail them is, in many cases, much larger than the item itself. Thus I'm not able to sell these junk stuff because a buyer sees the item at, say, 20$ and postal fees at 30$ or 50$ or 100$ due to weight, so he is like, ok, this is absurd - fuck it. That's because the postal service has limitations while carrying weights that make you pay a lot if you are "overusing" their service. Again: These are compromises we make all the time, why would anyone expect that BTC will do everything without any compromise whatsoever?
So in crypto, in theory, you could make very large block sizes and make a mandatory fee structure that escalates dramatically as it tries to fit in a lot of transactions that are considered above rational capacity - to emulate the postal service. But, still, you won't compete with VISA's 2000tx/sec average because you can't do microtransactions at low cost. Maybe BTC can compete with certain SWIFT and Western Union transactions, cost wise, and then get altcoins, modeled after bitcoin, to do the VISA stuff for microtransactions. Or find another way to do it.
For as long as half the block transactions are dust or near-dust, there's not much rush. Yeah, some companies might try to flood the network to "prove" that we need a bigger block, and then after the block is raised to say 8mb or 20mb, the same companies might be doing similar tests and saying "oh, yes, you see at this rate of increase for a determined attacker like us that is willing to spend XXX BTC per day in fees, it's just a matter of X time for BTC to become unusable for most, or centralized, so we have to find alternatives - and we are now selling to you the new, offchain service that will protect the future of Bitcoin"
People are saying that 1mb promotes interests of offchain companies etc, but wait what'll happen if it ever goes to 8 or 16 or 32mb blocks and these same companies become much more "necessary" to "protect the future of btc".
August 20, 2015, 08:21:41 AM
Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand? August 20, 2015, 08:20:22 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
go litecoin if you want more tx/s. hell no just go all in ripple you moron.
i dont mind paying even a huge fee just to have the full control of my funds, being able to send when i want, where i want.
August 20, 2015, 08:09:23 AM
After the sell off support for XT fork has evaporated. XT alcoin is basically dead. Mike and Gavin have lost their credibility and will not be accepted as core devs anymore. Question is: can they harm bitcoin in any other way?
August 20, 2015, 08:02:28 AM
August 20, 2015, 08:00:33 AM
Higher fees don't remove the upper limit of 7 transactions per second. Is that so hard to understand?
Neither does XT altcoin. Is that so hard to understand? 
August 20, 2015, 07:58:30 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
go litecoin if you want more tx/s. hell no just go all in ripple you moron.
i dont mind paying even a huge fee just to have the full control of my funds, being able to send when i want, where i want.
August 20, 2015, 07:58:13 AM
stop with the FUD and sloganeering ... bitcoin can scale just fine without the induced faux panic and manufactured fork missile crises circus (as much fun as the drama is).
No kidding.
Garzik's original proposal http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf is a far superior solution compared to XT. These kind of proposals are the way bitcoin is supposed to evolve. You make proposal, everyone checks it out and makes suggestions and changes, you iterate this process several times until you've got something everyone agrees on.
But no, instead people want to push through an ill-conceived idea that involves 8GB blocks in twenty years along with whatever else is packaged into the XT client because Hearn says the sky is falling.
We've had sustained spam attacks for extended periods and as long as you're not an idiot and attach an appropriate fee, they don't affect you.
Bitcoin doesn't need to be dumbed down or compromised to achieve its primary goal; money that is outside the control of governments and central banks.
NOBODY is forcing you to use bitcoinXT, you can choose whatever you like.
Do you also go complain by every Linux Distro which isn't the one you currently have installed, to stop releasing those because you feel threatend that those distros are forced upon you? NO, you pick the one you like. If after a while none of the apps work on your distro, too bad, you picked the wrong one.
August 20, 2015, 07:54:30 AM
So what is your solution to the bottle neck problem?? Most small blockers don't have one.
There is no bottleneck if you pay a bit more. The fees are pretty decent, even for top priority, for a "crowded" block anyway. If someone wants his dust to move at once though, by paying peanuts, let him wait.
August 20, 2015, 07:38:27 AM
Every thread on this site is now the same. The thread titles do not matter.
Obligatory: XT, blocksize
Obligatory: XT, blocksize
August 20, 2015, 07:33:50 AM
Oh yeah. Economies of scale. Surely he hasn't heard that one before. Good on you to point this out.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
I'd say you clearly don't understand english maybe? Did you somehow miss this paragraph ?
Quote
Adam Back: The worry with extremely large blocks is that they can be used to exacerbate a selfish mining attack. If you’ve got a large miner or a couple of large miners, they can create very large blocks and other people won’t be able to receive them or process them in time. So, they will gain an advantage in mining.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
Bitcoin chose its parameters to make the advantage minimal so that it’s a level playing field between small miners and large miners. Right now, the interval between Bitcoin blocks is ten minutes. And the approximate time it takes to propagate, or send a block after it’s found, across the peer-to-peer network is about 10 or 15 seconds. You want the ratio between the propagation time and the block interval to be high enough, because, as a miner, while you’re waiting to receive a block, or while you’re processing a block to check it’s valid, you’re unable to mine. So, you lose money.
By having larger blocks, it’s going to take a longer time to process them. So, it’s going to favor miners with higher bandwidth or who are more centrally connected via high speed links to other miners. It gives them an advantage.
If you increase the block size rapidly, the level playing field is eroded. If it gets eroded too much, once miners are able to create blocks that only they and a couple of other big miners can mine, they can exclude everybody else because [other miners] can’t keep up.
The block size is there to put a check on these economies of scale and level the playing field.
This argument is antiquated. With pool mining the individual miner doesn't have to deal with the blocks at all. All that matters is that the pool has sufficient bandwith. I ran 84 machines through 3G with my phone as a wifi hotspot in a remote area just to check with a different cellular network. Worked like a charm.
Jump to: