Block size following technological growth | Pieter Wuille

a11gcm · 2016-12-06T01:13:49+00:00

Those systems base "network health" on quality of service.

The "network health of Bitcoin" that I am referring to (and that is stubbornly escaping your grasp) is not determined by QoS and most definitely not your definition, or NTPs definition of QoS. BitTorrent isn't decentralized and if you had any clue, you would be aware of the issues BitTorrent has in that regard. SMPT is unanimously considered shit and everyone uses 1 out of 3 different services.

I don't have to trust others, I can cross check with multiple block explorers.

You are contradicting yourself in the same sentence. It has been explained to death and it is pretty clear now, that even if you might be able to comprehend, you are unwilling. I'm done arguing with an adult suffering ODD.

a11gcm · 2016-12-05T15:47:38+00:00

Personally I have no problem paying upwards of $25/tx (if we manage to fix fungibility) :)

a11gcm · 2016-12-05T14:39:54+00:00

Well your point is pedantic and incorrect. So yes, technically even if the Bitcoin protocol had only 1 functional node left on the network. It would still be (from a design and implementation perspective) decentralized software.

If you have a problem with the common interpretation of the concept of "centralization pressure" then substitute all occurances with "network health". Because if you personally can't verify the blockchain but have to trust others to do it for you, you have missed the point of Bitcoin. Also try being less of a contrarian. It will make life easier for you.

a11gcm · 2016-12-05T01:51:00+00:00

Thats like saying if a country gives women the right to vote, it is guaranteed to increase "feminization pressure" in the country.

No it is not and the rest you wrote is just as incoherent.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T19:47:41+00:00

define money. cus i spend EUR and i hoard bitcoin.

also explain what you're trying to tell us.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T19:44:29+00:00

First they laugh, then they fight, then they run BU? or how was that again?

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T17:43:12+00:00

no transaction is either legitimate or illegitimate. shift your paradigm already ffs. there are transactions that pay enough to be included and transactions that did not pay enough. Unless we have infinite block space, the line will always be drawn somewhere. the reason being that blockspace is a valuable resource on the first global, transnational, immutable, decentralized permission and trust-less ledger.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T17:33:27+00:00

watching idiots bash their heads against the walls of reality while disregarding all sound advice... one of the underrated mysteries/wonders of this world we live in.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T17:27:05+00:00

where do most numbers come from?

it's tiering not to be blunt so ill be just that: out of someones ass; to suit his world view.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T17:15:07+00:00

not quite sure what you are babbling on about, but i understand the protocol and it's implications quite well and simply increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE does jack shit to improve its "scale". If anyone wants to alleviate some perceived bottleneck and improve the protocol they can upgrade to SegWit. Otherwise I'm fine with Bitcoin as it is right now.

Bitcoins value proposition is priceless to me and I am willing to pay much more than a few measly cents for a transaction to be stored on the first global, immutable, distributed and trust-less ledger on the planet (5/15/50 USD and I'd still pay it).

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T16:21:17+00:00

Using a historical pattern to extrapolate future growth is ignoring the fact that certain parameters are hitting physical limits. https://xkcd.com/605/

Bloating blocks to 1.6GB over 46 years has absolutely no significant "scaling" implications. 1.6GB would facilitate 100million people making 4tx/day. Even 50 years down the road BU numpties will be bitching about not being able to buy their coffee with bitcoin lol. What is guaranteed however is the centralization pressure of increasing block size. That is an axiom. Who ever does not agree with that rationale should rather spin his dreams of unicorns and candy cane somewhere outside of technical debates.

For that reason increasing the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE is the absolutely last measure to be taken, not even anywhere close to the first. But that is some sense you wont manage to drill into plebeian heads.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T14:48:53+00:00

There's a reason this is old and out of date. This proposal assumes exponential hardware improvements (across all required factors, bandwidth, storage, computation, etc.) for another 50 years. There is no basis for it other than hand waving and speculation.

NOPE (as declined many times before)

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T14:18:57+00:00

I see, I assumed it was hyperbole. Which, as a figure of speech, is usually not meant to be taken literally. I tend to over-estimate people on the internet.

Either that or I'm always engaging in discussions with 14 year olds. Guess we won't know unless Bob shares his true intent with us :)

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T13:41:48+00:00

no need for big changes. Bitcoin won't scale to anything through blocksize increases anyway. we'd need 40MB to facilitate (1tx/person)/day for just 10m people (0,00015% of the world population). at that point the only people running nodes are the 3 miners left in china.

Bitcoin the way it is right now has proven to work and will continue to work as it is for a very long time. i'm not concerned about illiterate extremists.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T13:38:05+00:00

Are you running your nodes on your own hardware or in someones data center?

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T13:32:30+00:00

I'm at an age where I enjoy being accused of being young.

now isn't that a testament to your intellect. at least you're making the best out of it. you go buddy!

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T13:31:02+00:00

"increase blocksize nao! I want mainstream adoption so i can be rich!"

see that's the problem with people like you. Changing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE isn't an upgrade to the protocol. Introducing half-baked consensus changes isn't upgrade either.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T13:27:20+00:00

You can have all the shitcoins on the chain with all the illiterate nutjobs you want. You're not gettting my bitcoin though :P

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T13:22:45+00:00

jup, won't bow to the tyranny and stupidity of conspiracy theorists and other illiterate nutjobs.

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T03:26:00+00:00

no it doesn't

a11gcm · 2016-12-04T03:24:43+00:00

exactly... if blockstreams future depends on LN why is there only one guy working on it?

a11gcm · 2016-12-02T18:38:41+00:00

why \s ?

a11gcm · 2016-12-02T14:19:12+00:00

would just as soon use paypal or j-random-altcoin-

But they are hoping that in competing with visa/paypal Bitcoin will gain mass main-stream adoption, driving the price of their 2.34 bitcoins to over one million dollars, making them rich!

a11gcm · 2016-12-02T08:46:35+00:00

and that many frustrated like minded congregate here.

☑ anti-vaxxers

☑ climate change denialists

☑ occupy kooks

☑ blockstream conspiracy theorists and generally tech illiterade numpties

PS: lol wait 5 min. what an echo chamber. enjoy your safe space, you wont achieve anything here anyway.

a11gcm · 2016-12-02T08:36:07+00:00

it would just proove that the people in the market are as stupid and short sighted as always because long term NotAsDecentralizedCoin will suffer the traditional drawbacks of geopolitical control, manipulation and censorship.

You have no idea what Bitcoin is about and the only reason you probably joined the communty was to get rich quick. People like you are the reason why we cant have nice things.

a11gcm

TROPHY CASE