Quote from: nullius on Today at 07:53:46 PM

Quote from: DaRude on Today at 07:38:18 PM

Quote from: nullius on Today at 05:51:41 AM

<snip>

There is only one reasonable way to read it. It is wrong, and whoever made it should feel bad.

Bigblockers suffer the same essential fallacy as UBI socialists: They don’t understand markets. Bitcoin network capacity is in extremely high demand—high enough that fees reach an equilibrium at the highest that the market will bear, and that in turn limits demand.

A modest linear bump in the blocksize (= supply) would be soaked up instantly, with fees and backlog settling back to where they are now as more people try to make more transactions that are currently not even attempted. Meanwhile, that linear blocksize increase would non-linearly increase the resource demands on nodes. (And a large increase of the blocksize, à la CSW rhetoric, would just wreck the network.)

Increasing base-layer capacity to, what, maybe 30–40 tps tops would be a sick joke at a cost that would surprise people. It would not solve any problems, and it would create many. We need technologies supporting tens of thousands of TPS or more; a doubling (or whatever) of the current blocksize is insufficient by orders of magnitude, too much and not enough all at once.

A blocksize increase would obviously increase miners’ BTC revenue per successful block: Blocks would be just as full, and fees would be just as high, and there would be more transactions per block. But on the other hand, it would also raise miner costs by increasing the orphan rate (and/or the cost of infrastructure to try to avoid this problem); and it would damage Bitcoin’s long-term value proposition, which is bad for miners who have long-term capital investments in Bitcoin.

Never forget that the blockchain with the Nakamoto Consensus is the world’s most inefficient database. That is the cost of decentralization. A trusted authority serving as the central arbiter of transaction order, à la Digicash, would be orders of magnitude more efficient and would have other advantages. It obviously has some fatal disadvantages; observe that Digicash died over two decade ago. The inefficient database is evidently a worthwhile cost to bear; evidence: Bitcoin has value! Just keep in mind that it is costly. Freedom is not free.

Oh, “llama”? I read it as “lamer”, but I am not sure. Also, I do not care. The rest of it is clear, and it is stupid. Honey badger ain’t up a tree; and the bulls don’t look very dead from where I sit!

P.S., DaRude, could we please have some more peash and luff in WO? If you criticize Marcus for posting meaty pictures, then his feelings may be hurt, and he may feel discouraged from the benevolent charitable giving of these virtual meals, and then I may literally starve to death. Do you want for me to starve!? You are just full of hate. Sad

Right, some of us are actually old enough to have lived through the bcash fork and have actually supported bitcoin financially and with UASF back in 2017, thus the reason we're here and not with bcash. But, if one is able to ignore the cheap attempt at drawing parallels between bigblockers and socialists (lol seriously? way to undermine your valid points there), other than that, a solid write up about big blocks for noobs to read up on. Only my question was what's the reason the CSO of blockstream is tweeting this now? Or was it a joke that i missed?

As far as Marcus, if you actually read what i wrote you'd realize that i never criticized his childish way of supporting his argument against vegans by posting pictures of meat (if anything such trolling undermines his argument and just clutters the board but whateves). On that topic i just stated that it might not be healthy to have a borderline religious ceremony about the food that you're consuming, and that quoting any study that claims that's something is "entirely possible" is laughable and such BS should, and will be called out by the board. If because of that he gets butthurt enough and switches to ad hominem attacks that's his problem. Sorry to say but this board doesn't care about his hurt little feelings. State your solid arguments, honeybadger doesn't care about your crying just because someone pokes holes in your arguments.

Implication of unwarranted assumptions about me, as a sort of underhanded ad hominem attack that you evidently don’t have the balls to say outright. ✔
Knee-jerk reaction to my use of the word “socialists”. (I referred specifically to UBI, which in practice pretty much requires making money printer go brrr; and regardless of whence the money comes, the concept is to give everyone free money. Pop quiz: Due to the workings of markets, what would giving everyone free money do to prices?) ✔
Tortuously pompous concluding paragraph which shows incisively that my sarcasm about Marcus’ hurt feelings just went over your head. Whoosh. ✔
All that, just to ignore the valid points I made except where you criticize me for making valid points in a way that is disagreeable to you. ✔

Filed accordingly, >/dev/null.

Poor Marcus! What will all this toxicity do to his self-esteem? Could we please have a safe space here? Sad

I post a simple one liner question "Why is Samson tweeting this now? Or am i reading it wrong"
-Replies and quotes my question ✔
-For some reason mentions UBI ✔
-Mentions socialists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy✔
-Writes up a decent explanation of issues with bigblocks (wasn't asked, but still a nice change of pace) ✔
-Accuses me of not having balls to do something (lol we in 5th grade?)✔
-Question left unanswered ✔

As much as i enjoy the unexpected attention, but i got shit to do IRL. We can play the "i say one word and you tie it to socialism" (Godwin's law for socialism) game later. Ta-ta

&> /dev/null