<<  >> (p.3)
    Author Topic: Blocks are full.  (Read 15014 times)

    • BlindMayorBitcorn
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1260
    Merit: 1116



    View Profile
    January 21, 2016, 11:44:38 PM
     #41
    It's the Fullblocalypse!

    Panic! Stop! Run away!!










    (Ok now come back.)
    Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.

  • SebastianJu
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2674
    Merit: 1083


    Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile


    View Profile WWW
    January 21, 2016, 11:51:38 PM
     #42
    Quote from: thejaytiesto on January 21, 2016, 02:57:23 PM
    You guys must be kidding me with this. Bitcoin works perfectly, I just send a transaction through my Core wallet, sent the recommended fee, and I didn't had any problems. Don't be cheap on the fees, and wait until 0.12 comes, and wait for SegWit, we can do this without raising the block size now. In the future maybe if needed, but right now, we have SegWit and we can resist until Lightning Network is operative. We must resist the pressures.

    Guess you don't get all the threads and complaints about newbies and established bitcoiners whose fees again were not sufficient. And fees will only rise now.

    1mb blocks enable easy spamming too so that makes things worse.

    I can't see when a big part of the community became that conservative and fearfull that nothing is allowed to change anymore because "what if".
    Please ALWAYS contact me through bitcointalk pm before sending someone coins.

  • jonald_fyookball
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1302
    Merit: 1019


    Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


    View Profile
    January 22, 2016, 05:39:05 AM
     #43
    Quote from: Lauda on January 21, 2016, 02:48:04 PM

    Classic has no roadmap or anything. Even if we disregard the safety risk of 2 MB blocks right now, we would have this same discussion very soon (if the growth is going to increase). There's a proposal that aims to fix the validation time being quadratic; we should wait for that to be implemented.

    Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
    you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.

    Really seems like you're shilling hard for core/blockstream.  Not that I
    think they are paying you or anything.  You just have a huge bias
    and seem to always support their position and actions.  That's
    my OPINION and my impression.  Just saying.

    proof LN isn't Decentralized           official Electron Cash wallet

  • YoonYeonghwa
    Sr. Member
    ****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 242
    Merit: 250


    View Profile
    January 22, 2016, 06:01:10 AM
     #44
    Quote from: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:26:00 PM
    I guess that we need to see frequent backlogs in 30 - 60 MB range for things to start changing.
    Exactly. That is the only way that people are going to realise that we need change.
      ✔ FAST EXCHANGE     ✔ OVER 350 COINS       ✔ MULTICOIN DICE      ✔ FREE COINS EVERY 24 HRS!     
       YoBit.net   ▮▮▮▮▮   Play DICE!   Win 1-5 btc just for 5 mins!     

  • Cryptology (OP)
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1008
    Merit: 1001

    In Cryptography We Trust


    View Profile
    January 22, 2016, 06:11:25 AM
     #45
    Quote from: YoonYeonghwa on January 22, 2016, 06:01:10 AM
    Quote from: Cryptology on January 20, 2016, 03:26:00 PM
    I guess that we need to see frequent backlogs in 30 - 60 MB range for things to start changing.
    Exactly. That is the only way that people are going to realise that we need change.

    Yes. Plus bitcoin's price < $50 and Ethereum's capitalization taking over Bitcoin. We will have "consensus by fear".

  • Lauda
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2674
    Merit: 3004


    Terminated.


    View Profile WWW
    January 22, 2016, 06:41:27 AM
    Last edit: January 22, 2016, 01:37:55 PM by Lauda
     #46
      Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 05:39:05 AM
      Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
      you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
      So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

      1. 2MB Block size
      • doubles the theoretical tps
      • introduces a new attack vector
      • Simple change
      • Hard fork

      2. SegWit
      • Fixes transaction malleability
      • Fraud proofs
      • Simpler script upgrades
      • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
      • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
      • Soft fork

      I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase.  Roll Eyes I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.
      "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
      😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)

    • Karartma1
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 2310
      Merit: 1425



      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 08:44:41 AM
       #47
      Quote from: SebastianJu on January 21, 2016, 11:44:31 PM
      Quote from: Karartma1 on January 21, 2016, 08:24:26 AM
      I hear talking like the big guys we are here to defeat: this is not the FED.

      If the economy goes wrong then let's give them some QE, then after a while QE2, then QE3 and so forth.

      If we start raising the block size it will be like that in a way: tomorrow 2MB, in one week 4MB, you understand the trick.

      This is not the $ and never it will be.

      If it's needed to bring adoption forward then go ahead. Bitcoin will never succeed when adoption is hindered effectively. Sure there are potential problems, one has to deal with it like it happened all the time. And suddenly an arbitrarely setting becomes a breaking stone.

      To me there's one fundamental assumption to make: this coin is made of 21 millions pieces. We can break it into more digits but we will always have 21 mln unless we don't super hard fork it.
      Let's not be unrealistic: BTC is not for mass adoption. This is what I wanted to say in regard to my dollar metaphor.
      And, look, I'm not saying problems require to be left on their own but more thank a block size, hard fork debate I see different people's opinions having battles.

    • Zarathustra
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 1162
      Merit: 1004



      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 09:28:03 AM
       #48
      Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 05:39:05 AM
      Quote from: Lauda on January 21, 2016, 02:48:04 PM

      Classic has no roadmap or anything. Even if we disregard the safety risk of 2 MB blocks right now, we would have this same discussion very soon (if the growth is going to increase). There's a proposal that aims to fix the validation time being quadratic; we should wait for that to be implemented.

      Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
      you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.

      Really seems like you're shilling hard for core/blockstream.  Not that I
      think they are paying you or anything.  You just have a huge bias
      and seem to always support their position and actions.  That's
      my OPINION and my impression.  Just saying.



      He is shilling for the Politbüro. He loves censorship and totalitarianism. He tries to sell us a non-consensual monster fork that gives us 1.35MB as a 'short term scaling solution' in the year of the Great Halvening.

    • Matias
      Full Member
      ***
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 182
      Merit: 101


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 09:47:49 AM
       #49
      If blocks are full, why average transaction confirmation  time doesn't increase?

      https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation-time?timespan=1year&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

    • Matias
      Full Member
      ***
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 182
      Merit: 101


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 09:49:27 AM
       #50
      Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 06:41:27 AM

      2. SegWit
      • Fixes transaction malleability
      • Fraud proofs
      • Simpler script upgrades
      • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
      • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
      • Soft fork


      What do you mean "Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users"? Doesn't average user send bitcoins with segwit exactly the same as before?

    • SuperCoinGuy
      Full Member
      ***
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 224
      Merit: 100

      Defender of Bitcoin


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 09:54:07 AM
       #51
      How much is the confirmation speed impaired when the blocks are full?

    • crazyivan
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 1652
      Merit: 1007


      DMD Diamond Making Money 4+ years! Join us!


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 09:55:58 AM
       #52
      Quote from: bitcoin carpenter on January 20, 2016, 03:20:48 PM
      It is frustrating how much energy is being wasted.  Just scale the blocksize  already...

      This. Bitcoin Classic is an obvious solution which solves this issue for the next two year. Large miners support it.

      So WTF is the issue then?
      For security, your account has been locked. Email acctcomp15@theymos.e4ward.com

    • Lauda
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 2674
      Merit: 3004


      Terminated.


      View Profile WWW
      January 22, 2016, 10:10:31 AM
       #53
      Quote from: Matias on January 22, 2016, 09:49:27 AM
      What do you mean "Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users"? Doesn't average user send bitcoins with segwit exactly the same as before?
      Complex as in implementation, not the usage. Using Bitcoin will be pretty much the same.

      Quote from: SuperCoinGuy on January 22, 2016, 09:54:07 AM
      How much is the confirmation speed impaired when the blocks are full?
      It is not if you include the right fee.

      Quote from: crazyivan on January 22, 2016, 09:55:58 AM
      This. Bitcoin Classic is an obvious solution which solves this issue for the next two year. Large miners support it.

      So WTF is the issue then?
      1. It is not an 'obvious solution'.
      2. It does not solve anything, especially not for 'two years'.
      3. They withdrew their support.
      4. You wouldn't be asking such questions if you actually spent time reading threads. Two words: Validation time.
      "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
      😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)

    • BitUsher
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 994
      Merit: 1035


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 12:11:41 PM
      Last edit: January 22, 2016, 01:00:32 PM by BitUsher
       #54
      In fairness to Bitcoin Classic , I do need to clear up some confusion... but I also added some other distinctions which make Core the better choice of the two.


      Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 06:41:27 AM

      So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

      1. 2MB Block size
      • doubles the theoretical tps
      • introduces a new attack vector(They are aware of this and including sigop protections)
      • Simple change(Yet not as simple as changing maxBlockSize, much more code needs to be changes for sigop protections)
      • Hard fork(Which is more dangerous)
      • Smaller team of less experienced developers maintaining implementation(5 devs , with 2 very experienced)

      2. SegWit
      • Fixes transaction malleability
      • Fraud proofs
      • Simpler script upgrades
      • Allows for one to prune the signature data and reduce the blockchain size
      • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption(But likely an effective 1.7MB to 2MB)
      • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users to understand(UI and usability won't be effected )
      • Soft fork(are indeed safer than HF)
      • Has a team of dedicated and experienced developers testing and supporting it -45+


    • Amph
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 3276
      Merit: 1072



      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 12:41:00 PM
       #55
      segwit is not 2mb is actually less, 1.75-1.8, still it should suffice for the short term future

      bnut in the end they need to increase the capacity directly, this within the halving of 2020 must be done for sure

    • lottery248
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 1596
      Merit: 1010


      beware of your keys.


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 12:57:32 PM
       #56
      this is in order to encourage mining i guess. if less fees, then the miners would not wish to secure the bitcoin, you understand that the cost of mining in bitcoin is too high, and at least $0.3 every GH and at lease 2 cents is gone per GH to pay the electricity, that would be a bit fair.

      this would not benefit the transaction, explicitly. that's why i would recommend for 4MB on this.
      out of ability to use the signature, i want a new ban strike policy that will fade the strike after 90~120 days of the ban and not to be traced back, like google | email me for anything urgent, message will possibly not be instantly responded
      i am not really active for some reason

    • DimensionZ
      Sr. Member
      ****
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 350
      Merit: 251


      Shit, did I leave the stove on?


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 01:13:20 PM
       #57
      Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 10:10:31 AM
      Quote from: Matias on January 22, 2016, 09:49:27 AM
      What do you mean "Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users"? Doesn't average user send bitcoins with segwit exactly the same as before?
      Complex as in implementation, not the usage. Using Bitcoin will be pretty much the same.

      Quote from: SuperCoinGuy on January 22, 2016, 09:54:07 AM
      How much is the confirmation speed impaired when the blocks are full?
      It is not if you include the right fee.

      Quote from: crazyivan on January 22, 2016, 09:55:58 AM
      This. Bitcoin Classic is an obvious solution which solves this issue for the next two year. Large miners support it.

      So WTF is the issue then?
      1. It is not an 'obvious solution'.
      2. It does not solve anything, especially not for 'two years'.
      3. They withdrew their support.
      4. You wouldn't be asking such questions if you actually spent time reading threads. Two words: Validation time.

      Wait so setting the miners fee above the average can move your transactions faster even if there is a backlog? I didn't know that trick.
      ▓▓▓ BITMIXER.IO ▓▓▓▓▓▓ High Volume Bitcoin MIXER ▓▓▓

    • Lauda
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 2674
      Merit: 3004


      Terminated.


      View Profile WWW
      January 22, 2016, 01:20:15 PM
       #58
      Quote from: DimensionZ on January 22, 2016, 01:13:20 PM
      Wait so setting the miners fee above the average can move your transactions faster even if there is a backlog? I didn't know that trick.
      Of course. The higher the fee, the higher the priority of your transaction. I've never had any problems transacting because I tend to add the highest possible fee with the wallet (Core, using the slider) or add a custom one that is even higher.
      "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
      😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)

    • jonald_fyookball
      Legendary
      *
      Offline Offline

      Activity: 1302
      Merit: 1019


      Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


      View Profile
      January 22, 2016, 01:32:48 PM
       #59
      Quote from: Lauda on January 22, 2016, 06:41:27 AM
        Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 05:39:05 AM
        Lauda, so in addition to the 'quadratic' risk (for which you admit there is a fix but core is not implementing),
        you're also giving us the 'nothing is better than something' argument.
        So let's set the situation straight. We have two proposals:

        1. 2MB Block size
        • doubles the theoretical tps
        • introduces a new attack vector
        • Simple change
        • Hard fork

        2. SegWit
        • Fixes transaction malleability
        • Fraud proofs
        • Simpler script upgrades
        • Theoretical tps possibly equal or higher than with 2 MB blocks depending on adoption
        • Somewhat complex; decent complexity for inexperienced users
        • Soft fork

        I'm definitely shilling for Core because obviously SegWit is not far superior to a 'simple' block size increase.  Roll Eyes I 'don't seem to always support them'. Do I support them in 'Core vs Classic', 'SegWit vs 2 MB blocks'? Yes.[/list]

        HUH?

        if its not far superior then why do it?

        Also dont see what that has to do with your comment of "we would have this same discussion very soon if growth is going to increase".

        whatevs. 

         Roll Eyes
        proof LN isn't Decentralized           official Electron Cash wallet

      • Lauda
        Legendary
        *
        Offline Offline

        Activity: 2674
        Merit: 3004


        Terminated.


        View Profile WWW
        January 22, 2016, 01:39:49 PM
         #60
        Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 01:32:48 PM
        HUH?
        if its not far superior then why do it?
        Your sarcasm detector has run out of fuel or has never worked in the first place. One could easily conclude from that list that SegWit is much greater of the both proposals.

        Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 22, 2016, 01:32:48 PM
        Also dont see what that has to do with your comment of "we would have this same discussion very soon if growth is going to increase".
        Because 2 MB blocks don't solve anything. All it does is kick the can a little bit down the road.
        "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
        😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
        Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 »  All
          Print  
      Page 2
      Viewing Page: 3

      IRLBTC™ © 2025 IRLBTC.com