Topic: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? - page 11. (Read 18486 times)

Are you going to unleash in your typical mature and reasoned protesting when the 1MB limit is lifted before block reward < fees? Or... is your impotent rage only for Gavin?

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

It's a question of trajectory and method now. Thankfully, the idea of "1MB forever" popescu pogs is doomed.

non big blockers? im just a regular bitcoiner man

anyway, to answer you, imho i'd tend to say lets revisit blocksize once block reward < fees.

i do want to see a fee market emerge before cutting into it.

its been fun until now, low cost transactions and all, but seriously im in bitcoin for a bit more than a visa competitor.

monetary sovereignty, censorship resitant and truslessness y know...

That's not even possible at 8 gigabyte blocks, some off-chain solution is needed no matter what. So it's the best place to start. Blocksize is basically the last scaling factor that needs adjusting, not the first.

Given the engineering decisions behind Bitcoin you really have but two choices: accept that some transactions & use cases will be discriminated against or join the gang of XT shills and attempt to turn Bitcoin into VISA.

brg444 has probably his pockets full of alt-coins 

So we keep Bitcoin just for the 0.001% just like credit cards in the 1950s, since we must not upgrade our technology from punched cards and telegraph lines.

Pretty suspicious hey?! There are many people accusing him of going rogue. There are gossips running around saying he wants to bug Bitcoin with this new fork...
Is he working with the CIA or not?

Let the freeloaders drop Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin manages to attract the wealthiest of pockets and those that care about true censorship resistance & decentralization then we can consider it a success and a foundation on top of which the next financial system can be built.

This is just basic economics. The fees will first rise sharply, then 33% of users will drop Bitcoin, some will move to (an)other crypto-currency(ies) with adaptive blocksize limits, some will move to the legacy banking system etc. Yes this could very well be the end of Bitcoin but not for distributed blockchain based crypto-currencies. Now we see why Gavin is so desperate about his fork. He cares about Bitcoin.

I don't see a real big deal in a transaction not confirming in my normal use-case over the last 4 years.  On-chain transactions for me are nearly always about risk management.  My risk management strategies are years-long and course operations.  Even in my to-date use of Bitcoin, I've not expected a transaction to occur with high reliability because it remains in an experimental state.  What I do expect, however, is that my transaction would time-out eventually rather than be lost which is a vastly different thing.  So far I have been pleasantly surprised that my native Bitcoin transactions have gone through within a few block cycles.  That is perfectly adequate for me.

My expectations for a sidecoin will be entirely different.  There I would expect reliable and fast transactions (if that were the design goal of a particular sidechain.)  I would also expect that in an unusual system failure or successful attack, my value would not be lost.  I am willing to take a hit on convenience (say, to have my value tied up for a few weeks) in this case because I expect such events to be rare.

People will learn to pay a fee for a quick Bitcoin transaction.

Except Bitcoin is not contained in a bubble and there are other alternatives by which one can hold & secure their wealth in Bitcoin yet use these superficial open source payment layers to transact with.

Kinda like you don't use your savings account to buy nuggets at McDonald, ya know?

I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks.

Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive?

And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption.

The block size has to be increased to accommodate more transactions. It is getting urgent now.

Oh noes!

Sounds interesting and i hear the first time of that. But i did not find any info about. Do you have a link about it?

If the space could be used better then we could safe bandwith and discspace, only the cpu would be used more then.

Then when will it be changed? Most developers act like never. They speak of a needed fee market, as if we need to safe the poor hungry miners who don't earn enough.

And if i'm not wrongly remember, at the last price rush of bitcoin we could see full blocks for some time. Legit transactions did not confirm. Surely not the best experience for new users.

Exactly. I'm so very disappointed in our developers, it's really hefty. They act like politicians that work hiddenly for some bank or insurance company because they know their job later is secured. Like corrupt politicians. Really a pain to see such unworthy behaviour in a community that started with such high ideals. But i guess money really corrupts.

Why do you think the security of the network will be killed when there is no fee market? You realize that the network is 100 times more secure than needed? And that means that the reward for mining is way too high at the moment.

Besides that... it doesn't really matter if the reward is as high as now or only 10% of that. It ALWAYS would mean centralization since corporate organisations will scale up their operations. And small miners are not lucrative anymore since ages. It doesn't matter how high the reward is, the centralization will go on regardless. I'm wondering why satoshi foresaw this and did not think it is a bad thing.

Regarding Nodes... who says that nodes have to work in millisecond areas? Why should bigger blocks mean centralization at all? Harddiscspace? It's dirt cheap. Internet bandwith? Is growing nearly exponentially in most countries. So as long as you don't live in developing countries or in the landside of the US ( ) then you should be fine. In no way it could mean centralization like you seem to vision it.

And only because you think Bitcoin is a currency that should not be used to pay for a coffee doesn't mean that is the vision normal bitcoiners has. In fact you should look around you, microtransactions are one big hit of bitcoin. You surely won't find many fans with the idea of waiving that.

And why should it? Bitcoin should replace bank money. If you can't use bitcoin for the everyday life then it's usefullness is so very much limited that it would turn out to be some black money coin only at the end. The use cases for legit transactions would simply very limited.

Satoshi never mentioned a vision of bitcoin being a currency for the rich. If bitcoin really would turn out to be a high amount transfer system then this would mean only some people can use it. And because of the nature of bitcoin those people would be not seldom those who want to do bad things with money. Bitcoins fame would turn way more negative. Simply because the normal use cases of money does not really exist anymore. The couple of people that would use it for legit things could be counted on one hand. And the rest? Would use an altcoin. And surely not the controversy lightning network. Way too many "great" altcoins tried that.

Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway..