Pages:
Author

Topic: Why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus - page 2. (Read 1798 times)

full member
Activity: 157
Merit: 103
Salí para ver
August 24, 2015, 02:47:20 PM
#8
[...]
In order to gain consensus, the number of nodes running the bitcoinxt client would need to reach a supermajority of 75%.
[...]
Correction: The number of mined blocks would need to reach 75% of the latest 1000 blocks.
legendary
Activity: 892
Merit: 1013
August 24, 2015, 02:46:10 PM
#7
Quote
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?
In the light of the precedent post showing some very interesting writing of Satoshi, can we at least agree on a "YES" as an answer?

[EDIT]
this will be my sig for now on Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
August 24, 2015, 02:42:27 PM
#6
Adopting the bitcoinxt fork will make the incentives for miners in the form of transaction fees miniscule

That's why several mining pools are supporting the 8mb proposal.  They must be looking forward to receiving "miniscule" amounts of fees.  Oh wait, that makes no sense whatsoever.   Roll Eyes

Also:

    Assume Network 'A' can process a maximum of 2500 transactions per block and the average fee is .0001

    Assume Network 'B' can process a maximum of 20000 transactions per block and the average fee is .00005

Which network can potentially generate a higher amount in fees?  That's right, the one that can support more transactions.  Learn to math plz.  Clearly the miners who support the fork have done their homework and understand basic numeracy.



Small casual transactions can be built ontop of the main bitcoin blockchain once those solutions are developed. Molding the main payment layer of the blockchain into something which can pay for small purchases such as coffee will ruin the main monetary uses of bitcoin.

You mean it will ruin "your" main monetary uses of Bitcoin.  If a majority support the fork, maybe their main monetary use includes small purchases and they don't want some elitist telling what they can and can't do in a permissionless system.  If your uses aren't compatible with that, maybe this isn't the project you thought it was.
full member
Activity: 284
Merit: 122
www.diginomics.com
August 24, 2015, 02:22:06 PM
#5
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?

...

– Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015

It was actually designed to do even more. It was designed also to make payments cheaper than Visa to permit "small casual transactions" online too.  



Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Adopting the bitcoinxt fork will make the incentives for miners in the form of transaction fees miniscule, and will instead enable centralization.

Small casual transactions can be built ontop of the main bitcoin blockchain once those solutions are developed. Molding the main payment layer of the blockchain into something which can pay for small purchases such as coffee will ruin the main monetary uses of bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
August 24, 2015, 12:18:39 PM
#4
so your argument for why BitcoinXT Must Never Gain Consensus is that it would allow it to potentially compete with Visa?
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
August 24, 2015, 12:10:22 PM
#3
Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?

...

– Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015

It was actually designed to do even more. It was designed also to make payments cheaper than Visa to permit "small casual transactions" online too.  



Source: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
August 24, 2015, 12:09:55 PM
#2

Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?


Yes.

Quote from: satoshi

In a few decades when the reward gets too small, the transaction fee will become the main compensation for nodes. I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large (bitcoin) transaction volume or no volume.
full member
Activity: 284
Merit: 122
www.diginomics.com
August 24, 2015, 12:05:16 PM
#1

Click Here to Read Article

Putting into effect BIP101 would result in an increase to 8MB after January 11, 2016. In order to gain consensus, the number of nodes running the bitcoinxt client would need to reach a supermajority of 75%. After that point, there would be a 2 week window to transition to the new fork as the old blockchain becomes incompatible with bitcoinxt. From there, the blocksize limit is set to increase linearly to a maximum of 8GB in 2036. Once started, the block limit doubling schedule cannot be stopped until 8Gb is reached.

Visa currently has a transaction processing capability of 50,000 per second. If this 8GB blocksize were to be instantiated, then bitcoin would potentially be able to compete with the likes of traditional payment systems, but is that what it has been originally designed for?

If Bitcoin comes to depend on bureaucrats rather than protocol, you might as well use Visa. They know how to do that far better.

– Nick Szabo, August 21, 2015
Pages:
Jump to: