Quote from: necrita on June 26, 2015, 12:18:52 AM

Next two years of blockbloat on a fingernail:

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 26, 2015, 12:20:35 AM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 25, 2015, 11:59:19 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on June 25, 2015, 11:12:58 PM

Heh, the Gavinistas are having a very bad ~~day~~ week. Cool

First, Frap.doc was put upon to explain...

Actually it's been a bad 18 months and counting for Mr. 'bitcoin up' fap.doc.

OK sure, but the recent one-two wombo combo of Gavin declaring

A. "the financial crisis is over"

and

B. "The sky will not fall if the block size stays at 1MB"

can't be easy for poor old Doctor Frappy to explain away with his usual hand-waving assclown routine.

By ~~ignoring~~ gainsaying and insulting the expertise of Nick Szaboshi, Adam Bakomoto, Bram Cohen, and ALL THE CORE DEVS, he's really painted himself into a corner. Cheesy

Like so, so much in this debate, both these perspectives are simultaneously true. Storage has been slowing down in areal density growth for years, but 3D NAND is set to outpace mechanical disks in that and every other characteristic except absolute price still of course (3D NAND SSD's start at large capacities). I heard 16 TB and 24 TB will be available early next year. Set to explode as they increase the layers as the manufacturing technique improves (highest commercial density is 32 layers last I heard). Nanotube/graphene takes it 5nm and below before next decade.

The situation with bandwidth being affordable enough given the proposals on the table is a little more uncertain. The political climate now steers the debate on the price of internet bandwidth, that has ominous concerns as to the slow, fine grinding outcome. There's also reason to be more certain; alot of new and alternative delivery channels are set to go live in the next few years (numerous air/space based internet services, evolving meshnet tech, increased leverage of the cartel licensed spectrum). This can't be looked at any other way than a huge spike in bandwidth supply throughput. Not to say there's not corresponding demand, but it's just an instant answer to the age old "what will they do with this insane new capacity range" (use it up with the most valuable purpose). There's so much more to signals tech than I can even remember to put here, so suffice to say that it's set to proliferate and interoperate in so many unexpected, unpredictable, and disruptive ways.

At the same time, we've got a long time to decide much at all about this blocksize debate. We have scalability software designs to consider. We have/will have hardware (and core bitcoin software) that can likely handle most of the outcomes. So there's too much hyperbolic polarisation of this debate altogether. Don't like what Gavin did with the fork, but he's right to point out what he did recently; that an incredibly cheap system for transacting with becomes a fraction more expensive when the blocks start to fill up. It's not going to become unusable overnight, and we're not as close to that point as the hand wavers are suggesting. Relax everybody, it's easier to think it through when there's no empty appeals to urgency.