3 ms·

What? The core developers (employed by Blockstream) have intentionally kept the block size at 1MB in order to support the product they're attempting to develop

What? The core developers (employed by Blockstream) have intentionally kept the block size at 1MB in order to support the product they're attempting to develop (lightening network layers) which lets them facilitate federated payment processors siphoning fees out. It's a red herring to claim larger blocks increase centralization when it's just data storage. Drives are cheap. Centralization already happened once sha256 ASIC hardware was produced enmasse, preventing normal users from earning block rewards. The Bitcoin devs are lost in political dogmas, rather than improving the software for users. Thankfully there's alternative iterations.

johnvonneumann 9y ago
Mate, please, stop with the Blockstream FUD. Blockstream make up only 20% of commits on Bitcoin. Find another strawman. There is not a 1MB limit, the limit was lifted with the implementation of segwit, as it changed the counting mechanism to weight instead of size, as a result, you can now push upto 3.7MB worth of tx into a block. Your proposition is wrong and people like you who constantly spout it should be called out and shamed like the fucking charlatans that you are. Blockstream has no financial interest in having Segwit, LN or anything else implemented. They have DEFENSIVE patents against the technology to stop trolls from holding up the development process. Please, locate yourself to Google Patents and search for Blockstream, then consult their Open Patents disclosure for further confirmation that you are wrong and have taken the bait of companies who have an interest in deriding the current decisions of Core. Core is implementing a variety of changes in the future that will put many businesses against Core out of business. Cross chain atomic swaps = exchanges More private transactions = anyone doing blockchain analysis (lolgarzik) Lightning Network = miners and anyone who processes transactions. The most painful part of your opinion is that you can't extrapolate network rules and see that in the next 2 years, rewards are going to half, meaning that if we drop TX fees now, it will make it even harder to pull miners back. By implementing a simple situation for on-chain settlement, miners still make decent returns down the line. Please, if you have any interest in Bitcoin, and have any decent brain about you, call people like this out for being the corporate sockpuppets they really are.
- ericb 9y ago
  Your response is insults, ad-hominem and a conspiracy theory that these are sock puppets. You won't convince anyone that way.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    I don't have a leg in this debate. I just found it funny that you're both accusing each other of the same thing, and neither of you provided adequate sourcing so it's impossible for a layman/concerned bystander such as me to figure out who to believe.
    - ericb 9y ago
      I'm not the OP. My claim is about the comment that I replied to, so that is my source.
  - johnvonneumann 9y ago
    Whilst I would usually agree with you, your comments about being a conspiracy theorist are IMO entirely wrong, look at the history of the account, the lifespan of it, and the threads it posts on. I agree that ad hominem is incorrect and pretty much always a bad way to argue, but you need to have some idea of context and the active measures that have recently been taken in this scaling "debate", there is straight up disinformation being circulated. As far as I'm concerned, I did give facts, the segwit facts are correct. The loss of business is fact. The comment about chain rewards decreasing is fact.
    - ericb 9y ago
      Even if it is a sock puppet (and isn't your account pretty new?), humans are reading here, so my advice is to take the high ground if you want to convince people. Can you explain why chain rewards decreasing are problematic. Asic hardware is already bought, so mining still makes sense even if the rewards drop as the cost is sunk.
  - johnvonneumann 9y ago
aqsheehy 9y ago
Libertarian conspiracy theorists out in full force today
nadaviv 9y ago
> The core developers (employed by Blockstream) There are hundreds of Core developers; only about 6 of them are related to Blockstream. Your conspiracy theory does not hold up to reality. > have intentionally kept the block size at 1MB The block size has already been lifted to 2MB-4MB with SegWit. > Blockstream ... support the product they're attempting to develop (lightening network layers) Lightning Network was invented by people that have nothing to do with Blockstream, who founded their own company for that: https://lightning.engineering/team.html https://lightning.engineering/team.html There are 5 different teams developing Lightning Network implementations. Blockstream is merely responsible for the C implementation, they have no special control over Lightning. > It's a red herring to claim larger blocks increase centralization when it's just data storage. It's not just storage; the main issues are bandwidth, latency and IBD time. There are very real engineering limitations and trade-offs that have been discussed in depth over the years that you're just brushing off here. It's not as simple as you make it appear.

johnvonneumann 9y ago

Mate, please, stop with the Blockstream FUD. Blockstream make up only 20% of commits on Bitcoin. Find another strawman. There is not a 1MB limit, the limit was lifted with the implementation of segwit, as it changed the counting mechanism to weight instead of size, as a result, you can now push upto 3.7MB worth of tx into a block. Your proposition is wrong and people like you who constantly spout it should be called out and shamed like the fucking charlatans that you are. Blockstream has no financial interest in having Segwit, LN or anything else implemented. They have DEFENSIVE patents against the technology to stop trolls from holding up the development process. Please, locate yourself to Google Patents and search for Blockstream, then consult their Open Patents disclosure for further confirmation that you are wrong and have taken the bait of companies who have an interest in deriding the current decisions of Core. Core is implementing a variety of changes in the future that will put many businesses against Core out of business. Cross chain atomic swaps = exchanges More private transactions = anyone doing blockchain analysis (lolgarzik) Lightning Network = miners and anyone who processes transactions. The most painful part of your opinion is that you can't extrapolate network rules and see that in the next 2 years, rewards are going to half, meaning that if we drop TX fees now, it will make it even harder to pull miners back. By implementing a simple situation for on-chain settlement, miners still make decent returns down the line. Please, if you have any interest in Bitcoin, and have any decent brain about you, call people like this out for being the corporate sockpuppets they really are.

ericb 9y ago
Your response is insults, ad-hominem and a conspiracy theory that these are sock puppets. You won't convince anyone that way.
- fao_ 9y ago
  I don't have a leg in this debate. I just found it funny that you're both accusing each other of the same thing, and neither of you provided adequate sourcing so it's impossible for a layman/concerned bystander such as me to figure out who to believe.
  - ericb 9y ago
    I'm not the OP. My claim is about the comment that I replied to, so that is my source.
- johnvonneumann 9y ago
  Whilst I would usually agree with you, your comments about being a conspiracy theorist are IMO entirely wrong, look at the history of the account, the lifespan of it, and the threads it posts on. I agree that ad hominem is incorrect and pretty much always a bad way to argue, but you need to have some idea of context and the active measures that have recently been taken in this scaling "debate", there is straight up disinformation being circulated. As far as I'm concerned, I did give facts, the segwit facts are correct. The loss of business is fact. The comment about chain rewards decreasing is fact.
  - ericb 9y ago
    Even if it is a sock puppet (and isn't your account pretty new?), humans are reading here, so my advice is to take the high ground if you want to convince people. Can you explain why chain rewards decreasing are problematic. Asic hardware is already bought, so mining still makes sense even if the rewards drop as the cost is sunk.
- johnvonneumann 9y ago

aqsheehy 9y ago

Libertarian conspiracy theorists out in full force today

nadaviv 9y ago

> The core developers (employed by Blockstream) There are hundreds of Core developers; only about 6 of them are related to Blockstream. Your conspiracy theory does not hold up to reality. > have intentionally kept the block size at 1MB The block size has already been lifted to 2MB-4MB with SegWit. > Blockstream ... support the product they're attempting to develop (lightening network layers) Lightning Network was invented by people that have nothing to do with Blockstream, who founded their own company for that: https://lightning.engineering/team.html https://lightning.engineering/team.html There are 5 different teams developing Lightning Network implementations. Blockstream is merely responsible for the C implementation, they have no special control over Lightning. > It's a red herring to claim larger blocks increase centralization when it's just data storage. It's not just storage; the main issues are bandwidth, latency and IBD time. There are very real engineering limitations and trade-offs that have been discussed in depth over the years that you're just brushing off here. It's not as simple as you make it appear.