/biz/ - Business & Finance

"A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it's working OK.

Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won't matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it's nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

With very high transaction volume, network nodes would consolidate and there would be more pooled mining and GPU farms, and users would run client-only. With dev work on optimising and parallelising, it can keep scaling up.

Whatever the current capacity of the software is, it automatically grows at the rate of Moore's Law, about 60% per year." Satoshi 2010
Satoshi was moron too?

Big blocks are a meme.

Bitcoin is about balance. Blocks will get bigger when technoogy and infrastructure can support it. Until then it should stay safe, not big

Pic related, its what a big block would look like in real life

nChain is literally the only company that understands where this is all headed. Roger is just impatient.

>>16553837
roger has never been about big blocks. his main goal was to take craig down by infiltrating the big block community and splitting it up. it failed tho cause all the smart people went with bsv and all the sockpuppets went with roger. its very evident if u open ur eyes

Adoption limits are a racket

Only people who call people human garbage are nasty little teenage redditors. Biz is a Christian board so we respect the prostitute and the sexual deviant. In fact we try to fuck them to show our love.

>>16553837

You didn't put any effort into searching, did you?

>>16554095
>Source
Trust me and my illiterate spelling

>>16554193
i just put 2 and 2 together. coinbase adds bch right after it forked off and still hasnt added bsv. roger is an investor of coinbase. roger and his sub still havent banned greg even tho hes the most toxic piece of shit out there. bch is just a shitty version of btc with slightly bigger blocks but with central planning via devs. roger speaks up about none of that. i guarantee roger is blockstream. it was evident ever since the bcash conference in thailand last year

>>16554193
plus roger has shilled countless shitcoins hed rather have small blocks and many many coins. means more money for him.

>>16553837

dream team

>>16554193
Also roger is on record stating his belief that csw is satoshi....SO WHY THE FUCK DIDNT HE FOLLOW CSW'S PLAN?

>>16554325
He knows craig is unironically Satoj but when he found out Satoj worked for the cops he nope'd out because he's a criminal

Something also worth noting is that the small vs. big blocks "debate" was mostly comprised of pragmatic business owners (big blocks) and capitalists, versus left-leaning open source developers with little to no skin in the game (small blocks).

>>16554217

The fact that he didn't ban Greg speaks fucking volumes.

OP is a faggot.

>>16554365
roger is a fucking scumbag
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0

>>16553837
by now everybody understood the tradeoff between dezentralization and scalability.
just look at bsv, the only thing that goes up is the stiff size. will have more gb than btc in 2020

>>16554386

I think he uses libertarian rhetoric in a dishonest/unproductive way that doesn't map to real world consequences or outcomes. He's also probably one of the richest people in crypto

>>16554400

BTCers will just say that it's not a real blockchain.

>>16553913
>Satoshi was moron too?
he was if he lost his keys

Everything you need to know is in the price
BTC: seven thousand three hundred dollars
BSV: 70 dollars

nuff zed

>>16554412
>He's also probably one of the richest people in crypto
thats exactly what i think too. hes up there with dcg. hes really good friends with people like brian armstrong, erik vorhees, jesse from kraken etc... hes probably the one pushing the anti craig campaign the hardest

>>16553837
>big-blocks concept has any merit to it
You have been deceived thinking bitcoin is truly about the things it was originally marketed for in the early days - decentralization, destroy the banks, financial freedom, global revolution blah blah blah etc.. If you believe those things you are a prime example of why humanity is so manipulated due to their stupidity and borderline mass-retardation. SN literally said bitcoin could scale already greater than Visa back on the forums and that it doesn't hit a 'scaling ceiling'. USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN. The past 10 years have been a sham/narrative to make bitcoin/crypto have an imprint on society and to spread it like a virus, all the while humans are thinking bitcoin is the greatest thing in the world. During those 10 years all the worker bees were busy in the background engineering the perfect global financial bubble of everything. BITCOIN IS THEIR SOLUTION FOR THE PROBLEM THEY CREATED. The world will gladly accept it to 'avoid' the crisis because everyone in this world is terrified of a financial apocalypse.

To sum it up: the past 10 years have been the infrastructure development to get scaling on a global level, which can only be done with limitless blocks. Only data centers will be able to process those blocks and only governments/institutions can afford massive amounts of capital required.

YOU NEED A NEW ECONOMIC MODEL THAT IS 100% TRACKED AND CONTROLLED TO BRING IN THE NWO. You can't have one without the other. These two dip shits are just actors in a huge theatre doing what they are told.

I recommend you jump off a cliff now to put yourself out of your own misery from being a moron.

>>16554443

Roger has invested in fucking everything. Ripple, Binance, Kraken, Stellar, Ethereum, Monero, you name it.

Oh yeah, pic related speaking on Coinbase. They definitely know what's up

>>16554460
bitcoin is all about being
>a trustless permisisonless publicly auditable and secure ledger of unspent transaction outputs built from the longest valid chain with the most cumulative proof of work.
that's it no other bullshit or technicality is needed to define what bitcoin is.
it's value proposition is not for buying coffee or for sending $1 tips it's not foe storing imbecilic memes or porn immutably forever it's not for doing complicated smart contracts that interact with the real world.

bitcoin is just a means to store and transfer wealth without trusting any authority. it does not simply bank the unbanked any service could do that facebook libra could do that it lets you be your own bank. all the other fucking projects are sidetracked with retarded brainstorming every day some faggot comes up with something that could be forced onto a blockchain even tho it works perfectly fine without it.

>>16555035
>it's value proposition is not transactions
>it's value proposition is hodling

Hodl with me bro, match me. We're all going to make it.

>>16555069
that's an idiotic fallacy
there is no point in storing something you can't transact. it would have no value.

>>16553959
>>16554118
>>16555035
>>16554438

>>16555113

>>16554438
don't forget
miners reward from btc blocks $2000 to $5000
miners reward from sv blocks $1

>>16555109
>there is no point in storing something you can't transact
Transactions are discouraged with BTC. For it to be digital gold it needs to replicate many of it's attributes. Like being heavy and expensive to move around/transact with. This is Bitcoin 101.

>>16555175
>Transactions are discouraged with BTC.
no they are not transactions are the reason why it exists and mining is done at all.

>>16553837
Can someone explain to me why bigger blocks don’t work? Let’s be honest, 1mb in this day and age is puny. I understand the argument that some people (globally) have fast enough internet to propagate something like 512mb every 10 minutes, but the only people who propagate blocks are miners. So wouldn’t it only matter that the miners can manage those block sizes? I imagine most miners have high bandwidth/low latency networks because every ms matters when it comes to mining. I don’t understand the idea that everyone needs to have a node with the entire bitcoin blockchain, does anyone on here run a full node, and why? At the end of the day the only people with their money in the game are people with mining infrastructure, every other aspect of crypto just leeches on to them.

>>16555199
I didn't say transactions can't be done, just that they're discouraged. Honestly this reddit post is accurate and exactly how we Bitcoiners should conduct ourselves.

>>16555319
Bitcoin Global Peer To Peer Cash... just dont use it.

retard.gif

>>16553837
>roger
>craig
the lead for big blocks was Gavin
we can thank Craig for his removal from the access to the code base

lol

>>16555128
bsv mines at a loss

>>16555175

Thats cute

>>16555464
It's true. All of it. Craig is unironically Satoshi, but he's a small blocker. The only way he could keep the blocks small is by discrediting Gavin. If he didn't do that then BTC would have unbound blocks and none of the altcoins would have came into existence like Satoshi intended.

>>16553913
I agree with you but OP asked for anyone besides Roger and Craig. You just quoted Craig circa 2010. Op is also a retard because there are many people who support big blocks, so he’s either larping as a brainlet or he is one.

>>16555319
mempool takes care of itself no need for this stupid fud

>>16555636
It's not fud. Obviously the mempool takes care of itself. That wasn't what I said.

It's not on the network to cater to all our needs. We as users need to look after each other by being less demanding on it. Also I don't appreciate the toxicity. From one Bitcoiner to another, lets try and promote a positive community and hodl the line!

>>16555503
>BTC would have unbound blocks and none of the altcoins would have came into existence
Block size is hardly the only differentiator you fucking moron

>>16555660
That's all SV does. Scaling up the blocksize. Woopdie doo. BTC is dedicated to finding the most efficient ways to scale while offering new and innovative services like Liquid. Liquid even allows for tokens IIRC. Plus with Lightning in the mix there are no limits.

>>16555651
thanks i literally just sold everything

all my crypto, my house, and im about to pawn my laptop, cya guys

>>16555246
>Can someone explain to me why bigger blocks don’t work?
No DYOR. You won't find it because big blocks do work

>>16555847

>drinking the kool aid this hard

They just want to make money off you

>>16555651
>Obviously the mempool takes care of itself.

The mempool didn't exist until a couple years ago. Think about that

>>16555319
>some no name random reddit retard
>this is how all core supporters think

not falling for your jewish tricks ishmael

>>16553837
Literally everyone who is not a 2017 newfag or a CIA operative is shilling for big blocks you fucking retard.
There'a hundreds of publucly known early adopters and the only people who are not vocally anti small block are the winklevoss twins - and even they are still holding their BCH.
Kys

>>16557357
yeah it didn't exist before 2009 that's true.

>>16557491
>Literally everyone who is not a 2017 newfag or a CIA operative is shilling for big blocks you fucking retard.
not true, small blocks make more sense economically and for the purposes of bitcoin. but this does not mean any arbitrary block size limit the point is that the blocks are always full. that's what bitcoin needs.

Protip: most people don't care about gay ass nerd shit. They want profit, ROI. Someone promised that bigger blocks will bring normie money and profit, now they're on board. Tomorrow they'll jump on the next tech.

>>16555503
this, however comical, COULD have been the truth
however, there are other things to consider here, specially the Australian gov. debacle, Kleiman case which will absolutely rekt him and the biggest one, which is involving himself with Calvin, if he was bamboozling Calvin, he could end up in a ditch somewhere.

>>16557526
>>16557530
Fuck off brainlet, I've been here since 2013, there was no such thing as a small blocker before someone infiltrated the communities and kicked the original devs out.
Their job is done, and by proxy (alt season) - it made me richer, too.
And now you're just a brainlet who believes their propaganda after their job is done.

>>16557625
the small blocker stance couldn't have developed before the blocks got full and the effect was observed. in 2013 everyone thought the block size will naturally increase before it is approached.

>>16557625
also if you believe in the alt-season nonsense you are the brainlet here. alts don't really outperform btc. especially not long term. i think pretty much nothing does.

>>16557660
You don't get it
All the charts
All the projections
Were for growing p2p cash
BTC is now just another boomer gold, but more confusing
The growth for p2p cash will happen elsewhere.

>>16555246
Communists vs. Capitalists. Choose your fighter.

>>16557672
bitcoin is not p2p cash the programmed supply curve and the incentive mechanism absolutely prohibits it being used as cash. it is however a better gold than gold ever was. some people call gold the true form of money but they are retarded of course. gold is not money and bitcoin is not money. however they are means to secure your wealth and transact value.

bitcoin is without a doubt the best p2p payment system that is actually trustless permissionless and secure. as none of the alternatives are actually secure this is not very hard tho.

>>16555246
>but the only people who propagate blocks are miners
well for starters that's not true unless you have a centralized trustful piece of shit chain.
>At the end of the day the only people with their money in the game are people with mining infrastructure, every other aspect of crypto just leeches on to them.
also not true.
you managed to lie with questions... nice false flag jeet.

>>16556426
it's a pity about andersen bitcoin can thank a lot for him too bad he forfeited his stake in a reputation system and buttmad about it.

There are a lot of big blockers but they usually aren't loud mouth cunts about it to the extent blockstream shills are. BCH has actually gone way up in my estime the past year after seeing the s o y cringefest from BTC and the retardation from BSV camps.

>>16557743
>but they usually aren't loud mouth cunts about it to the extent blockstream shills are
ahahahahah oh nooo nononono what boards do you actually frequent? surely not this one.

>>16557743
it's true tho the imbecilic chilling for bch dropped to near zero since the sv split. you managed to fork off and contain your retards kudos!

>>16557759
>>16557766
Nothing of substance and double posting. Nice.

>>16557776
i will triple post even if i feel like it and there is nothing you can do about it neger

>>16557776
What? There was plenty of substance. His point was that SV shills are very obnoxious and visible on biz, while you claim the opposite. He is right, you are wrong. Do you need any other posts explained?

>>16557823
I claimed no such thing.

>>16555847
blockstream is sure good at brainwashing

>>16557966
it makes sense if you think about it a hierarchic ecosystem deriving security from bitcoin pow has absolutely no scaling limit. nor theoretical nor practical.
meanwhile the pillar of the ecosystem remains fully trustless and permissionless and secure easily auditable by anyone and everyone.

>>16558008
Kys greg

>>16558014
it's all about managing the burden and balancing usefulness vs security. regional commerce don't need to be a global burden specialized smart contract chains don't need to burden uninvolved parties.

sv is retarded as fuck in every regard but trying to stuff everything under it's fat ass its the most retarded of all.

>>16554259
Blocked.com

The majority wanted bigger blocks in 2015. This included experts in the space. The problem is that they won't talk about it because of the blockstream/core cancel culture.

>>16558437
yes i remember i was one of them
we all wanted bigger blocks but only a handful of retards thought a non-consensus fork is a good idea.

>>16558452
There will never be 100% consensus and the block size has to be raised one day, but now we are stuck in limbo. The miners should have forked the day theymos started the mass bans and we would be in a much better place now.

>>16558494
>There will never be 100% consensus
95% is usually decent enough

>>16558494
since we don't want constant hardforks the best approach would be changing the code once and make it self adjusting
hard cap doubling with every halving soft cap dependent on average fees for last n blocks

>>16558572

This I agree with. We only needed 1 hard fork and bitcoin was set forever. Either a dynamic block size or remove the limit entirely and have miners set a soft limit.

>>16558590
removing the limit is an extremely bad idea
it's a dos protection it can scale naturally up with underlying infrastructure that's not a problem. but it is needed to keep the network stable and secure because there is half a dozen attack scenarios can be outlined that take advantage of unbound blocks. some done by miners which is not an issue for btc some can be carried out by non mining nodes even.

doubling the hard cap with every halving is well in line with moores law and observed increase in network capacity.

the issue about unbounded blocks (as in not full) is the fees will not sustain miners and encourages spam. which is the worst possible outcome.

>>16558641
btc has no hope to sustain miners

>>16558683
it's the only fork that has any hope of sustaining them. if you look at the fucking data this should be self evident.

>>16558699
not while the price is this low, with this difficulty, zero reason for it go up and fees can only increase if someone rich joins the market to bagpump
are you hoping the saudis come in to pump your bags?

bsv can continue to grow from utility and finding usecases, all of crypto dies if it doesn't

>>16558805
bsv fees are fucking $1 per block btc at least has $2k to $5k on average that's something. obviously the tx count will grow and the value will grow over time and maybe it will supplant the block reward one day. sv is fucked however.

>>16558899
no the tx count can't grow, it's stuck at 3k~ per block unless they increase block size
someone rich needs to pump btc price and subsequently increase the fees AND provide transactions so miners has fees
why don't you understand that high fees discourage someone to even move you asset
do you check the postage costs before you buy something on ebay?

>>16558950
>no the tx count can't grow
of course it can and does first with segwit adoption and optimizations then with increasing the block limit naturally.

>>16558950
>why don't you understand that high fees discourage someone to even move you asset
btc fees are anything but high they are a hundred times cheaper an a thousand times faster than my bank wires.

just because micropayments and spam is not encourage on-chain doesn't mean you can't transact it or that adoption is stunted. real financial adoption for actual wealth and value is well tolerating these fees.

>>16559016
btc is only twenty times cheaper on a good day and just as slow as wires you dumb corecuck

>>16559074
not in my experience and depends on the amount you send. my international wires take 2-3 days to clear often and the fees are horrible. there is both a tx fee and a percent fee. with bitcoin you just pay for the bytes no matter what you send.

>>16559003
>segwit
no thanks greg

>>16557724
>well for starters that's not true unless you have a centralized trustful piece of shit chain.
True. I propagate blocks with my fucking laptop on BTC. Small blockers are superior in every way.

BTC is the most secure crypto on the fucking planet because most people who use it run a full node and it is full nodes that secure the network. Personally I can wait for a solution like Lightning if it means hodling gold!

>>16558950
It's called Lightning, scrub.

>>16557829
>I claimed no such thing
>There are a lot of big blockers but they usually aren't loud mouth cunts about it
Those are your exact words in this very thread. You realise we have IDs here?

>>16559710
lightning doesn't matter at this point it minimally helps miners in network upkeep long term fees matter and btc is winning