Good collection of info, thanks.
Topic: Why i will support bigger blocks - and you should too - page 5. (Read 8632 times)
You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking. For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay. There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee. That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well. You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT. Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it.
BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB? Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth.
"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets. But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore."
"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."
This has all been presented in the article by Mike Hearn which everyone should read, since it presents the arguments concisely of why we should fork. A must read for anyone wanting to research this subject and be well informed:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.
Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
Well now, that's extremely ignorant and a "first world" way of thinking. For many people in other countries of the world, especially where Bitcoin has gained a respectable foothold, $0.50 USD represents quite a significant amount of money, possibly even a full day's pay. There's no possible way you can expect someone to pay that much just to get a transaction to be accepted in the queue.In order to gain adoption and grow to where most people think Bitcoin should be, it needs to adapt to be able to provide reasonable transaction times for the majority of transactions, for a reasonable fee. That reasonable fee is not $0.50 for the majority of people, and thus won't work too well. You are effectively telling all those folks that you don't give a shit about them, and you're pretty much advocating the same type of situation you're railing against with your arguments against XT. Just because you think it's a trivial matter and can afford it, everyone else should just "suck it up" because that's the best way to do it.
BTW - in all your supposed "research", did you happen to come across the fact that the original blocksize limit was supposed to be 33MB? Satoshi himself realized that 1MB was not sustainable for long term growth.
Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
Edited to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.
I am not convinced by your arguments, I have already addressed what you have said here. Could you please try and rebuttal the arguments I have already presented in this thread. - XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
- The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
- The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
Edited to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.
Faster blocks > bigger blocks
Faster confirmation is what the user wants
Faster confirmation is what the user wants
Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
- XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
- The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
- The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
Oh did you actually?
And did you check the source of material that you read?
Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result
I think hodedowe's conclusion pretty much nailed it on the head. You on the other hand are a shameless xt shill, begone to the alts board!
Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
- XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
- The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
- The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
.002 at current maket price is about $0.46 we're not using bitcoin to pay 46 cents per transaction!!
Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
- XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
- The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
- The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to $0.50 USD, omg so much) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
Oh did you actually?
And did you check the source of material that you read?
Cause your conclusion can be drawn blindly by just reading the titles of the threads in this section..... Which should only take you 5mins. I feel bad that you wasted several weeks for the same result
Having read up on this for several weeks, I have come to the following conclusion:
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.
- XT is a way for Gavin and Mike (evil) to say "FU" to the core devs for not following them like good little sheep
- The blocksize limit isn't a problem except during stress tests, which are not real network traffic, and won't be for quite some time
- The fees and "age priority" already built into bitcoin core seem to handle the problem as the network develops.
Now, I understand that some people are having a hissy fit because you they want 8mb blocks, but why? What's the point in devaluing the mining by messing with the core limits? You can easily pay more (up to a max of $0.50 USD, omg so much and then only...) if you want your transaction put at the front of the line. If not, wait 15, 20, or 30 minutes. Who is in such a hurry and too poor to pay an extra 0.002100 BTC? No one.
This seems to be a fight between Gavin, Mike, and the core Devs that spilled out and made everyone lose their poop in short order and largely promoted by altcoin followers in hopes that BTC will fail and their coin will take over.
Edited for clarification and to add: Media is running with this promoting the "End of Bitcoin".
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/could-split-end-bitcoin-170317429.html;_ylt=AwrC0F.FMdZVejYAGFuTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
Thanks XT guys! You've succeeded in making BTC look weak and pathetic.
Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.
-snip-
Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides.-snip-
I would like to ask you personally, how long would you wait for the block size increase, before you lose faith in the Core development team? Since if we wait longer then it takes for the blocks to fill up, blockstream will get its way and we will be forced to use third parties instead of being able to use Bitcoin directly. If that did happen however I would simply start using a different cryptocurrency.
I'd be very happy to be able to wire money anywhere in the world, completely free from central control, for only $20. Equally I'll happily accept more centralized methods to transfer money when I'm just buying a chocolate bar.
That discussion many years ago is very educational. I agree that for services to be built on top of the layer 0 fees would need to be bigger and that tinkering with Bitcoin as is always leads to certain unknowns, but when I read this 20 dollar figure per transaction fee I can't help but feel uncomfortable.
Who would even use Bitcoin at this cost? If only a few fringe cases of people would use btc by then, then who would actually buy bitcoin and at what cost? Would btc come crashing down to a couple of bucks? If that's the case then the 20 dollars would be an important fraction of the actual BTC bought to transact across the world.
Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size.
-snip-
Wrong. They will do it, they just can't agree when and how much. People really need to stop posting nonsense related to both sides. -snip-
Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.
Please understand that the pragmatic reality is that Core will never increase its block size. So if we the people want bigger blocks it must be done through a hard fork, whether that is XT or another proposal. The ability to hard fork exists so that such disagreements can be resolved and so that we have the ability to disrupt the centralization of power that can come to exist within a development team. Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic.
that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend.
I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly.
So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then.
The argument is that with bigger block size, the space is less valuable, so the required fee will be lower, so -- easier to send microTX/dust/spam. If you make it easier and cheaper, then more people come to fill the space, and in the end you are faced with the same problem again - except this time it is now unfeasible to even run a node on reasonable hardware/pipe.
Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
because no limit is not a good idea ... when you want excluded (and monitoring) SPAM traffic.
that why i don't trust XT ... and i prefer a PHYSICAL LIMIT to 2-4-6 or 8MB for 3-4 months to see what it's happend.
I don't understand the argument that no block size limit would fill the blockchain with spam. I mean the blocks up till the spam attack, which was costly for the one doing it, were not filled up nearly.
So when we would drop the block size limit, why suddenly should there be a lot of spam bringing the blocks to 20 MB? When it didn't happen till now then there is no reason to assume that it will happen then.
Still don't understand why people don't want to let the block limit increase
Heya
Off the top of my helmet:
1) They want it to be easier to maintain the full chain / full node, not harder
2) They don't think block size affects use / adoption rates (rather it affects logistics, fees)
3) They want to encourage alt-coin use
Point 3... what is a lightning network other than an altcoin?
It might be a sidechain but still it is not bitcoin.Point 1... If you think it is easier to handle only a couple of big transactions then you are right. With a block size limit of 1 we would turn bitcoin into a high value transportation system with fees compareable to paypal. And we would get far away from what satoshi wanted, providing an alternative to the current fiat system. That would only work with small transactions possible and that means the transaction can't be worth less than it's fee.
Point 2 is nonsense. I don't think they don't think so. They know it will be so. They only think that instead users will use their sidechain then. Bringing them personal profits.
This developer team is so corrupt at the moment. It's no fun watching at.
Oh, I will support bigger blocks all right. But I won't support Bitcoin XT. The risk of Bitcoin getting split into Core and XT is devastating.
The guys not only are puttin dodgy code that will kill privacy (the Tor blacklist is just a work of evil) the thing is, 75% is shit nothing when it comes to a hard fork, it should have been 90% minimum.
Jump to: