You do realize that Windows is a far more popular desktop OS (compared to Linux) due to the fact it offers backwards compatibility with multi-decade old apps (like 32-bit apps from the 90s), right?

Hell, sometimes you're even allowed to install old drivers, just because the Windows kernel offers a stable ABI (unlike the Linux kernel). Good luck doing that with Linux closed-source drivers/binary blobs.

32-bit Windows OSes still support running 16-bit apps. Same for x86 CPUs. Are they superior compared to RISC CPUs? Not really.

Windows is not a superior OS compared to Linux, but it offers the best backwards compatibility out there.

I've experienced every kind of IT debate you can possibly imagine (Windows vs Linux, CISC vs RISC) and let me tell you that backwards compatibility always wins, for better or worse. Even game consoles these days offer BC.

I get it that some people prefer using superior solutions, but it's all a matter of network effect (aka Metcalfe's law).

Even the IBM PC won against Amiga... where is Commodore now?

People (especially those that claim to be "old" enough, let alone youngsters) should read some IT history.

Nope, I looked at the graph and saw how for two days of high fees Litecoin outperformed Bitcoin by 200 and 400 thousand per day.

Again you're making the same mistake, by saying that if a shitcoin doesn't have the needed popularity for 10MB capacity Bitcoin should either.
It's much like saying the USA doesn't need highways because the Vatican doesn't have either! Or like it's perfectly normal to cram a Walmart in a 100 sqm shop because the previous MomnPop grocery on that lot wasn't getting more than two customers per hour.


Yes, bs, because things have changed in the last 10 years.
If internet speed would be the same all over the glove with half of it not going above 10Mbit per second it would cost you $100
 for that 10Mbit connection yeah, if a black Friday deal would involve a 500GB HDD for 70$ yeah, it would be a trilema.
Now it's exactly bullshit!

And the most ridiculous thing is that we anchor ourselves in this stupid node thing for the sake of decentralization when half of the world won't be able to even power on a nowadays miner as 5300W over 380~415V would blow the fuse and burn your house in most countries.
But yeah, the 4TB drive is the problem.



The last 8 blocks were mined in 18 minutes, on average 2.25 minutes per block, I guess I should go an sell my coins because it's obvious the chain is going to explode as the impossible did become possible, right?

 

And have you looked at the fees they pay for the spam on BSV?

To have the same current fees on Bitcoin but with 100 MB you would need spammer to pay at least 29 000 BTC, yeah 1 billion! in fees!
Every fucking day! Does it sound to you like something spammers would be able to do? 

Me and I'm sure everyone around doesn't give a damn if spammers fill blocks with 1sat/byte, what matters is that they are not forcing me to pay 100sat/b!


2013 called, 5 pools hold 90% of the hashrate nowadays! 

After reading most of the posts, I'm sticking to my views, it's Taboo if by increasing the blocksize to avoid network congestion the individual miners are getting eliminated from the Network, Increasing Blocksize can be a potential solution for Bitcoin but it is inefficient, because with this solution there will be another mess about the decentralized nature of the Bitcoin.

The proposal accepted is open if increasing the blocksize individual miner's power is not affected because we don't want our node to be controlled by only large entities. Network congestion can be a problem but having a solution risking the entire nature of the network is a big mess. Simply avoid moving coins in network congestion in such scenarios until we have a better solution to scaling rather than increasing the block size only.

I vote in favour of smaller block sizes because:

Bitcoin was created to be accessible to everyone. Thus, running a miner and running a node must be cheap hardware-wise. Don't underestimate the power of nodes for the Bitcoin networks. It's not just the miners. Increasing the block size will require more disk space. More disk space require more money. 20% of the world hold approximately 80% of the global wealth, so requiring more money isn't really fair after all.

Block reward + fees in last 24h 943.75+285.07 BTC, if we have 290BTC in fees in 1MB block then to keep the same fee level in 100MB we need 29 000BTC.


Yeah, and they why should I care about that?
The thing is that they will not be able to force me anymore to pay 100sat/b for a tx without spending themselves 1 billion day!

Remember, the same logic as to why the network is secure because an attacker must buy 10 billion worth of gear to attack it?
Oh and btw, they would have to pay 10 million each day just to fill the block with 1sat/b, not to mention that this would triple if BTC goes to 100k.


Do I have to bring again the graph with the spike in doge and ltc txs every single time fee in Bitcoin spike?
Ok, here we go:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-doge-ltc.html#6m

Again, you're asking yourself why people keep waiting for weeks for a reservation at a restaurant and not eating a hot dog on the street rather than thinking of opening a new restaurant to solve the problem and make everyone happy.

If you ask me, it merely tells us that there are times that there's too much demand for block space. But the congestion we're currently experiencing is not the normal situation.


That's because that's what you believe. In my personal opinion, it's probably better to maintain its current course of development and value decentralization and security more than the accomodation of a higher number of transactions through bigger blocks. Because technically, Bitcoin at its essence might not be a mere "consumer-product", or a network to "replace banks".

Plus do you actually believe a single decentralized database could process all of the trillions of financial transactions per day? No? Then use Netflix's centralized/federated data centers with their very-low-latency, high-rate-of-data transfer. That would probably fix the problem. But that wouldn't be a protocol called Bitcoin.

that is not your personal opinion. its plageurised script from a group of idiots that lulled you into repeating their narrative
just reciting the mantra of the party line.. without doing any math, or independent thought/analysis of what he is about to write

you then double down by using nonsense exaggerations, exaggerations that are not even original or well thought out

there are 8 billion people on the entire planet. and not all of them use one currency..
but lets say they did.. for "trillions of transactions" requires each person to buy 12 items a days SEPARATELY for one trillion.. you used plural so multiply it by your magic plural amount you have in your head..

but becasue not everyone uses one currency naturally, lets take yours
250m mature people(toddlers dont shop for themselves) using the dollar. they do not even do 3 billion transactions per day

so stop with the exaggeration that one currency needs to do trillions.. let alone billions of transactions a day

you training of a discussion of reasonable adjustments at regular periods vs your stupid training of pretending the argument is about "gigabytes by next year" huge leaps, make you look foolish

get away from your training officer(forum-daddy) and think for yourself. he is not helping you
try to use actual data, real statistics, math and logic.. not some story some troll you call daddy tells you

100 MB x 144 x 365 = 5,256,000 MB ~= 5.2TB per year. The 500 GB per year correspond to previously mentioned 10 MB block size.

Edit: You've corrected yourself. But, as I have said many times, it's not just the storage requirement (you can find HDD externals pretty inexpensive, even though 5.2 TB per year is quite too much). It's the verification process which takes most of the time, not the downloading. It already takes too much time, I can't fathom how much it'll take if we are to verify 100 MB.

nothing
he posted nonsense in a topic unrelated to what he was trying to announce(newbies cant create new topics)

its some troll that every year creates a new account just to announce he knows the identity of satoshi due to some book he read.. it seems he enjoys me debunking him, i think he tries to use lessons from my debunks to improve his trolling/tweak his script later.. but he never wins..