Quote from: tvbcof on February 06, 2015, 05:14:40 AM

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on February 06, 2015, 01:34:07 AM

If I ever go insane and suggest increasing the 21 million coin limit, please put me on your ignore list.

I will remind everybody again of Satoshi's second public post where he talked about scalability:

Quote

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool

to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.

Satoshi Nakamoto

If you didn't do your homework and thought that Bitcoin == 1MB blocks forever, well, that's your fault.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that would scale.

I signed up for a Bitcoin that wasn't controlled by those who already have power. I knew fuckin good and well that it wouldn't scale in a simplistic transaction rate manner while preserving almost anything about it that I liked (and which were highly marketed) and so did a lot of other of the more experienced early adopters I'll bet.

I'll lay 50/50 odds that Satoshi found that much of his early interest were starry-eyed fundamentalists and fed you folks a load of bullshit when he was caught patching in the 1MB. He picked you as 'lead' for your Pillsbury Doughboy nature. Hearn was one of the few guys who actually saw what was going on, but for whatever reason or set of reasons his wishes for the solution are that it be brought under control and somehow he caught your ear.

Why don't you do one simple thing: Say clearly where you want to see the solution end up, compute the size you need to do so, and do the hard fork one time.

If 140 tps is where you want to stop, say so. If 2000 tps is where you want to stop, say and do that. If 20,000, say that. Now you are playing both ends by leaving this value open. You let people say 'oh, we can handle 140 and remain decentralized.' and also 'oh, we can scale as needed.' It's slimy and it sucks and you should be ashamed.

I think you won't do this for the same reason you gently pull a hooked fish into the dip-net rather than jerk it around which scares it and risks a broken fishing line. There is very little other reason if you are going to demand a fork before any real transaction fees happen.

Initial examples of sidechains will probably be out in a few months. Long before the 1MB becomes a problem (if it ever really would.) A properly implemented two-way-peg makes a sidecoin an excellent proxy for a bitcoin and offers a true potential to both scale and to keep Bitcoin lite and defensible. It also provides the potential to keep proof-of-work happening on Bitcoin even if as the simplistic economics fail (as they are now from what I read.) I have not heard much from you about that, and I have every expectation that you are fully able to see through the nonsense of the idiots here on trolltalk. All I see is you working double-time to hard-fork, and it's awfully tempting to believe that sidechains have you in a panic for fear that they would work great.

For my part even as the one of the more vocal of the small blockchain crowd, I worry that 4-7 tps isn't enough even when penny-ante micro-transactions are happening off on some sidechain or another. If I saw a clear and well constructed path to real scaling and 1MB simply wasn't sufficient and it was demonstrated with something resembling rigor I'd change my tune about a fork. As it is, all you bloatchain guys are doing is herding a bunch of drooling sheep with simplistic fundamentalism, faith-based decentralization, nebulous claims about scaling, scare tactics and such-like. That's how I see it.

---

I'm pretty sure I'm right and you are wrong, and the more I think about it (from tapping out an earlier post on this thread), I think there is a damn good chance that 'mpcoin' could come out on top in the end. I'm actually kind of looking forward to a battle to say the truth. As I said, such a thing would be a really good way to really harden the system in a form where it is actually worth having around on planet earth.

WTF IS A BLOATCHAIN ?
youve completely missed the entire argument the blocks will stay the same size as now until there is another big rally and transactions to support such.....