Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 07:10:32 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 04:22:10 PM

Well I apologize for assuming that "big blocker" meant that you support bigger blocks?

Just no. The statement you made -- which I was obviously replying to -- was thus:

Quote

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 11:26:08 AM

I thought the majority of "big blockers" now regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment and willing to let go of it and move on to alt coins like Ethereum?

Note your claim that bigblockers "regard Bitcoin as a failed experiment" and "willing to let go of it" and "move on to alt coins like Ethereum". I'm just informing you of the likely reason you believe these falsehoods (if you are not merely dishonestly erecting a straw man argument for rhetorical purposes, that is).

Please do explain what kind of big blocker you are then. You won't get a pass just because you don't want stuff for free.
Since you support bigger blocks I think you have an agenda.
For example am I correct in my assessment that you believe in democracy?

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 07:10:32 PM

Quote

Your big block pals are now crying that they cannot afford to send transactions.

Some uninformed or unthinking bigblocker minority, yes. But such are not my pals. My bigblocker pals are crying that transaction volume cannot increase further, due to a stupid limitation in the expression of the code.

Quote

They are under the impression that everything should be free. Kinda reminds me of the Bernie bots.

Again, it appears to me that you are parroting a mischaracterization. You ought to get out of the echo chamber from time to time.

Well it doesn't matter if you aren't a socialist who wants everything for free.
My point is that with bigger blocks transaction fees will be much lower and everyone will be able to send whatever they want all the time even stupid transactions that are just bloat.

So you are basically advocating a centrally planned system where you allow everyone to send whatever the fuck they want even though their transactions are stupid and don't belong on the blockchain.

What I am advocating is a free enterprise system where the market decides what goes on the blockchain or not.
If you want to send 0.0001 to a dice game you can either pay the market price of a transaction or use a side chain.

Quote from: jbreher on May 26, 2016, 03:00:01 PM

Quote from: forevernoob on May 26, 2016, 12:13:35 PM

How is SegWit bloating Bitcoin?

'Decentralization' without fully-validating nodes is not really decentralization. Each node in a decentralized network must be able to verify all transactions for itself.

Accordingly, the only nodes that count for decentralization are those that maintain not only the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, but also the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data.

The sum of the transaction ~~fork~~branch of the data, plus the witness ~~fork~~branch of the data, is somewhat larger than it would be if the witness data stayed in the same block. There is additional data needed to correlate the correct block of transaction data with the correct block of witness data.

For a fully validating node, the resource demands are accordingly higher for The SegWit Omnibus Changeset than a simple bump of maxblocksize.

That is only the first layer of how The SegWit omnibus Changeset is bloating bitcoin.

It is smaller than franky1's scenario, but it does not require his/her (fully rational, BTW) interpretation of Core and Blockstream statements of what they might want to do in the future.

edit: overloaded use of fork replaced with branch

Are you saying that SegWit will be a bigger bump than 2MB blocksize increase and therefore bloat the chain?

For the same set of transactions, the Omnibus SegWit Changeset consumes more memory and more bandwidth than without The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. 'Cause maths.

Quote

So you are basically admitting that bigger blocks will bloat the blockchain?

If your definition of 'bloat' is 'bigger', then ... ummm.... duh. Yes. What is the point of your question?

The point of my reasoning above is to show that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is antithetical to its stated goal of decentralization through small resource demands.

And how is bigger blocks not centralization?