Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal!

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2016, 06:51:02 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 04, 2016, 06:47:00 PM

This is where we disagree. I think that Bitcoin can scale the blocksize limit, and it does not need to be efficient. Bitcoin can be suited for micro transactions. I think people that disagree with this vision should just create a new coin, and stop trying to "force" this alternative vision onto Bitcoin. I believe in the original vision of Bitcoin and I want the experiment to continue, I share this vision with its founder.

These quotes are irrelevant and outdated. You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact, but that is pointless. Let me show you an example of a recent and quick calculation that I've made.

You reveal your scientific and engineering background. "You can only try to disagree with something that is a fact" this is not true. I have a background in philosophy, unlike science it is not based on facts alone but self evident rationality as well. Ethics for instance is not based on any "facts". And I certainly can disagree with other peoples ethics.

Quote from: Lauda on February 04, 2016, 06:51:02 PM

Quote

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

It is reasonable to assume that the average transactions per person per day would be between 5 - 10 (minimum) if Bitcoin was used for everyday purchases. You're talking about 1750 - 3 500 GB of unnecessary data per day. Unnecessary as it, can be avoided with second layer solutions. Another problem with you is that you see LN as an alternative coin, but it is not even remotely close to that.
I would love to know the validation time of a 24 GB block on the latest CPU's.

You are arguing a huge straw man here. Just because we can not scale Bitcoin to twenty four blocks gigabyte blocks now it does not mean we should not scale Bitcoin at all. You have falling into the nirvana fallacy. An increase to two megabyte is huge, it doubles throughput. In the real world that is significant and it does not matter that we can not scale to 24 gigabyte blocks now. Over time maybe we can who knows, but if you are correct and LN and SD will be very popular then that will take a load of the network as well, as over time the technology increases, hopefully it will remain in step with technological progress. If that is not the case however we still can and should limit blocksize according to actual supply and demand and real technological limits. Instead of arbitrarily and unnecessarily limiting Bitcoin at one megabyte.

If people choose to use LN and SD instead of using the Bitcoin blockchain directly then that is fine. However arbitrarily and unnecessarily limiting Bitcoin at one megabyte causing increased fees and unreliability in order to push everyone onto off chain solutions is wrong, and antithetical to the original vision of Bitcoin. Just increase the blocksize and if we do not need to raise it again because everyone prefers off chain solutions then that is fine right? I think this would simply be a choice for freedom. Its not like increasing to two megabyte prevents LN and SD whereas not increasing the blocksize does prevent us from using Bitcoin directly in the way that we are used to so far. We should not radically change the economic policy of Bitcoin so early in its development, allow the experiment to continue.