Quote from: smooth on July 29, 2015, 07:54:43 AM

Quote from: sgbett on July 29, 2015, 07:51:58 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on July 28, 2015, 09:39:36 PM

Quote from: sgbett on July 28, 2015, 12:32:30 PM

Misrepresenting my position then arguing against that isn't going to cut it.

I said the problem is that the block size is too small, and that the solution is to make the block size bigger. That doing this requires no additional functionality. I contrasted this to the sidechain solution which does require additional functionality. As you rightly say nobody is claiming that is entirely the solution, but that is irrelevant, the point is that this or other solution(s) that require extra functionality are the very thing that your Tanenbaum quote warns against.

All that stuff you said about how we need to change TX size, thats some other thing. Either you are intentionally conflating the two, which is disingenuous or you really can't tell the difference, which I doubt is the case.

It looks to me like your emotional attachment to your position is causing your reasoning to become irrational. I don't think anyone's argument is absurd. I can see how enforcing higher fees benefits some parties, I think that misses the big picture which is that it *requires* additional functionality.

I'm not frightened of pissing contests, I think they are childish. You don't need to "fight" anything. As a smart human being we all need to listen, think and reason. Not inject hyperbole, and inflammatory language into posts to try and bully your opposition. Your argument should stand on its own merit and not the vehemence with which it is delivered.

We do need to "fight" features. Tannenbaum's maxim is a restatement of the KISS principle. I don't care if you can't see or won't accept that because of your economic illiteracy and a priori attachment to the absurd Red Queen interpretation. The fight is happening (with your participation) whether you like it or not, mooting your objections.

I'm not "misrepresenting" your position. The problem is that you don't understand your own position. Cheesy

"Contrived" 1MB tx bog down the network and present an attack vector. 8MB tx would 8^2 times worse, and thus the added complexity/functionality of larger blocks is demonstrated (your feeble speculative whining about my "emotional attachment" notwithstanding).

This is Sergio's conclusion; and Gavin's (present) ad hoc workaround is to marry (IE "conflate") a 100k tx size limit to any blocksize increase.

Let me be clear because you are a slow learner: The intentional conflation of 100k tx size limits and larger blocks is Gavin's quasi-solution to the additional functionality/complexity required by larger blocks, not my "disingenuous" personal interpretation. You were completely wrong about that (among other things).

Quote from: sgbett on July 26, 2015, 10:34:22 AM

What frightens me is that the whole thing seems to have turned into a pissing contest.

Quote from: sgbett on July 28, 2015, 12:32:30 PM

I'm not frightened of pissing contests

If you could stop contradicting yourself, that would be great. Wink

The introduction of sidechains, LN and whatever other solutions is a complicated solution. It's also a solution motivated by a desire to fix a perceived economic issue, rather than sticking to the very simple issue at hand. It is the very opposite of what you are claiming to be important, that software should be kept simple.

That is a contradiction.

The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap. A cap that was put in place to prevent DDOS.

Your reference of CVE-2013-2292 is just distraction. It is a separate issue, one that exists now and would continue to exists with a larger block size.

Great job on affirming your emotional attachment by posting inflammatory content, irrational argument and personal insults.

LN isn't really about fixing a perceived economic issue, it is about secure instant payments, something Bitcoin by itself can't do at all. The observation may be that if many routine/small transactions move to such a system, the need for such transactions on the main chain is reduced, but that is secondary. Even if the main chain had infinite capacity Lightning would still be extremely useful.

Yes I see your point. As a solution to block size issue I think its fair to say its still complex.

That is not to say it shouldn't still be done - as you say it may be very useful for instant transactions. (I still think those can happen on chain though but time will tell)