You Mad Bro? - page 2. | Bitcointalksearch.org

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:45:18 PM

please someone say somthing about full node count.

real and proper full nodes?

well current rules are based on 0.11.2 and anything older then that is not a full node, but a relay node. seeing as they cannot verify information they have not got the rules for as some features have changed.

so imagine it this way

core has 2499 up to date full nodes
then if we look at the other nodes that have the 0.11.2 latest rules PLUS the desire for 2mb...
2mb imps have over 1000 (classic+bu+xt)(30%+)

now.. when the core fanboys upgrade to segwit. not all of those 2500 regular updaters will stick to being full archival mode versions.. we could see as many as 500+ prefer to be the pruned no witness nodes. thus diluting down the amounts of real uptodate nodes with the latest rules that fully validate the blockchain.

basically only 2000 nodes fully validating segwit transactions/blocks

BeetcoinScummer

full member

Activity: 215

Merit: 101

I hate the non-vested economic majority. Fuck them dead.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: pedrog on February 19, 2016, 06:51:52 PM

Dude, this is not rocket science, if you have 10 spots and the cost is 1 to fill a spot and you have 100 people paying 1 there's still only 10 spots available, if 50 people pay 2 to get a spot still 10 spots available, if 30 pay 3, still 10 spots, it means there's always 90 people waiting, it doesn't matter how big the fee is.

Nonsense. Then you obviously have a flawed understanding of how the system works. The fee system helps determine the priority of the transaction. If you are a cheap average Joe who does not include the recommended fee then waiting is on you. Regardless of how many spots there are in the block, Lauda's transactions will always end up confirming in the first block. This is because my included fee tends to be much higher than what others include.

Quote from: Lauda on February 19, 2016, 06:40:43 PM

And if bitcoin never scales it will be always like that, because people will stop using it because the system is not reliable.
Like I said, damage is already done, block size increase should have happened months ago, people wanted to show who's in charge by pushing their way no matter the cost, it's done, they're the bosses now, good for them.

1) No damage has been done.
2) The system is working as intended.
3) The increase in capacity is coming with Segwit.
Any other nonsense that needs correcting?

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:45:18 PM

please someone say somthing about full node count.

Sybil attack. Wink

Rescue Squad

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

'All your nodes are belong to us' Grin

orpington

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 512

"pissed off" lol!

Panties all in a bunch. Grin

Cconvert2G36

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 20, 2016, 01:17:40 AM

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch Wink

They're not having lunch, they're presenting slides:

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 20, 2016, 01:17:40 AM

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13911132

Full nodes are a right, not a rasb pi privilege.

Blind Legs Parker

hero member

Activity: 2016

Merit: 721

It's not very polite to kill people while they're having lunch Wink

So yeah, what's your counter-argument regarding full nodes count?

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Hey Core!

lol good night bitcoin.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 20, 2016, 12:13:36 AM

(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter).

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:38:21 PM

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total.
Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can?

we could have GB blocks i can still point my cpu mining power at a pool. and yes we want these pools to be as big as possible, no pools do not centralized bitcoin, at any point in time poeple can switch pool or create a new one, if they don't like how a pool operates.

no miner will be adversely affected by a block size increase.

your best argument would be to focus on full node count, but i'm ready for that one too.

Blind Legs Parker

hero member

Activity: 2016

Merit: 721

(Let's make this succession of quotes shorter).

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:38:21 PM

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Granted, miners already mine in pools. That's one thing. Still I think you got pissed of too quickly after reading the word "start". Of course miners won't "start" mining in pools because that's what they've done for years. Decentralization has never been total.
Now do we want to make these pools bigger, and at the same time reduce the total number of small, individual miners, or do we want to keep as much decentralization as we can?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:45:18 PM

please someone say somthing about full node count.

It's an old meme, but it checks out.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

for the record i was on the small blockers side for about 12 hours at one point.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

please someone say somthing about full node count.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 19, 2016, 11:30:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:17:07 PM

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 19, 2016, 11:03:49 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 03:29:14 PM

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0 Roll Eyes

Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really Roll Eyes

what's stopping consensus from forming at this point?
its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position
big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB!

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

On the other hand there have proposed SegWit. They have a very valid counter-argument about the blocksize increase, that is the loss of decentralization.
Of course they appear to be unyielding if the core of the question is for you about how much we should increase the block size, because obviously they don't want to increase it. But increasing the blocksize or not has never been the real question. The real question has always been about finding ways to improve bitcoin by allowing new investors to join in without giving up on the qualities that bitcoin has at the moment (such as low fees and decentralization). The debate started because fees were getting higher (which is not good) and some people (Gavin's clan) said "ok that's easy, let's just increase the blocksize" and others (Core's clan) said "hell no, this solution is gonna kill decentralization".
We're looking for "a way to keep fees at a minimum", not for "a way to increase the blocksize".

As of now Core has done a pretty good job working on SegWit since it keeps the fees at a minimum while a the same time preserving decentralization.

ya i heard peter todd talk about how larger blocks will lead to small and medium miners being forced to "start" mining at large mining pools, it was at that point i got pissed off.

you've been fed lies, fucked up speculative scenarios, with a side of FUD, to come to the conclusion that we should ask all future bitcoiners to use lighting network instead.

Blind Legs Parker

hero member

Activity: 2016

Merit: 721

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 11:17:07 PM

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 19, 2016, 11:03:49 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 03:29:14 PM

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0 Roll Eyes

Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really Roll Eyes

what's stopping consensus from forming at this point?
its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position
big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB!

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

On the other hand there have proposed SegWit. They have a very valid counter-argument about the blocksize increase, that is the loss of decentralization.
Of course they appear to be unyielding if the core of the question is for you about how much we should increase the block size, because obviously they don't want to increase it. But increasing the blocksize or not has never been the real question. The real question has always been about finding ways to improve bitcoin by allowing new investors to join in without giving up on the qualities that bitcoin has at the moment (such as low fees and decentralization). The debate started because fees were getting higher (which is not good) and some people (Gavin's clan) said "ok that's easy, let's just increase the blocksize" and others (Core's clan) said "hell no, this solution is gonna kill decentralization".
We're looking for "a way to keep fees at a minimum", not for "a way to increase the blocksize". The rest is about how much you care about decentralization. I care. If you don't, of course you'll find the blocksize increase a very easy solution.
However if you care it has never been an easy question to answer. That's why there's debate.

As of now Core has done a pretty good job working on SegWit since it keeps the fees at a minimum while a the same time preserving decentralization.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: Blind Legs Parker on February 19, 2016, 11:03:49 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 03:29:14 PM

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0 Roll Eyes

Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really Roll Eyes

what's stopping consensus from forming at this point?
its CORE 's unyielding 1MB position
big blockers have Compromised on their side like crazy, we are now proposing 2MB!

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.a53kl32tj
https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/an-open-letter-from-sam-cole-ceo-of-knc-miner-t4868.html#p14848

Blind Legs Parker

hero member

Activity: 2016

Merit: 721

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 03:29:14 PM

~50% are pissed

There's a bias in your question ("Are you pissed off with Core's unyielding 1MB position?"0 Roll Eyes

Had you asked about people being pissed off because of the situation, without putting the blame on one side or the other, you'd have come much closer to 100% pissed off people.

I am pissed off, don't worry. It's not because of "Core's unyielding position", though, but because there's no consensus. Now that's not Core's fault, like you'd like us to think. Or at least it's no less Classic's fault than Core's. A consensus must be reached with them working together, not people like you accusing one side or the other of being the devil.

Yes I'm pissed off, but I'm even more pissed off at trolls claiming stuff like "Gavin is an idiot/asshole/other kind nickname" or "Core is selfish", than at the absence of consensus on the question. Way to be biased, really Roll Eyes

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

I don't know if BitUsher is a Core dev, but it sounds like it here.

Quote from: BitUsher on February 18, 2016, 08:02:52 PM

New compromise proposal -
Deploy segwit in April as SF but make signature merkle tree 1MB and remove incentives (unfortunately we lose some benefits here like Reducing UTXO growth but its a compromise)
Plan for a 2MB max blocksize HF for 6 months from now with a 95% threshold and 28 day grace period

I can be reasonable and cut down the HF window from normal 1year and offer a combined proposal.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

I'll call my grandmother.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: adamstgBit on February 19, 2016, 10:11:37 PM

Quote from: danielW on February 19, 2016, 09:41:41 PM

How is it unyielding when they are increasing blocksize via segwit soft-fork,

many people and devs would prefer no increases now (because they are not really needed despite FUD) but they compromised.

They said it themselves segwits capacity increase is a side effect, the segwit SOFT-FORK is so complex they couldn't anticipate this side effect until someone spent weeks implementing it.

the point here isnt so much 1MB limit, its the idea that Core has no intention, infact intent NOT to scale the main chain.

From lurking I've learned SegWit is a transaction malleability fix. And Core is planning to hard fork to 2MB, probably within 6 months or a year.

But I'm pissed at a certain Core dev who called me a spy, so I voted yes. Angry

Topic: You Mad Bro? - page 2. (Read 3350 times)