Quote from: cellard on December 29, 2017, 04:04:44 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on December 29, 2017, 01:36:05 PM

Quote from: hv_ on December 29, 2017, 08:22:21 AM

Quote from: Spendulus on December 28, 2017, 08:26:53 PM

Quote from: cellard on December 28, 2017, 06:53:57 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on December 28, 2017, 06:42:36 PM

Quote from: villuta on December 28, 2017, 03:47:17 PM

Funny thing is that Bitcoin was designed to work AND SCALE without 3rd party and now punch of devs,who are being funded by AXA(ceo is bilderberg chairman), claiming that increasing block size is not solution without even trying it.....

Claiming?

What part of "increasing block size is not solution" do you not understand?

There is no way to reason with big blockers, they just don't care, they want transactions to be fast and cheap at all costs, or they will not admit that the nodes would end up centralized in the hands of corporations. They point at how satoshi wanted this... so what? satoshi got a lot of things wrong, hey may have downplayed the impact of datacenters running nodes or possibly he didn't predict things to end up like that. A lot of things have changed since 2009. Oh and satoshi was bright enough to predict how people would be against having big blocksizes. I can't bother to find the quote now, but he said that, so he definitely considered that scenario. Things weren't written in stone, he left and now everyone says this or that is satoshi's vision as long as it helps their agenda. There's no such thing as "satoshi's vision".

That's pretty well stated. However, Satoshi certainly did have a vision, and it was of people being freed from the chains of debt based fiat currency.

As for the details involved in navigating to that point, I don't really care if people "believe" one block size or another. It doesn't matter at all what they believe.

These are simple issues of mathematics and database theory. Any questions can be answered with eighth grade math.

I can't make it any clearer than that. No stopgate or temporary solution will work because of the huge variance between normal and surge conditions in the transaction flow.

We are only sitting in a time slice here and nobody can see what works in the future. The best way is to try.

Bitcoin started as an experiment and still is.

Now we have two mostly orthogonal versions and we should give both room to show what works. Try to fight one down is pretty inmature and shows only good trolling qualities.

In my vision it can only win that version having the most simplistic protocol layer and highest degrees of freedom to build on top = rapid adoption.

This is certainly true, however we can use eighth grade math to figure how transaction speed and volume scale with a simple change of block size.

Just pick a desirable range for future volume, and ask how do we get there. Let's take 100x current or 300 transactions per second.

It is not required to test solutions which will fail at 2x or 4x current volume.

We already have studies that show at what rate nodes would get wiped out at current block size and in increases of 2MB up to 8MB. This study was developed by Bitfury:

So if BCash was getting used AND spammed as BTC does, blocks would get filled and 95% of current nodes would get wiped out of the system.

Again, Bitcoin Cash is about scaling on the miner node network. Core claims that you would need lots of non mining nodes where Bitcoin Cash claims non mining nodes are slowing down the network and are not needed minimumfor a needed degree of decentralization. Here it starts to be seen orthogonal to each other. And I understand why many have issues to accept this. No math needed up to this point.