4 ms·

Most informed people would say that the scam is that the original Bitcoin was taken over so that its throughout could be stifled and the people controlling it c

Most informed people would say that the scam is that the original Bitcoin was taken over so that its throughout could be stifled and the people controlling it could sell an awkward and unnecessary second layer. When one side says the other is a scam but goes to enormous lengths to stop technical discussions while saying that throughput below a 144p YouTube video is too much data, people should start to question whether they are being fed propaganda.

gruez 7y ago
>[...] while saying that throughput below a 144p YouTube video is too much data [...] That's a gross simplification of the issue. The problem with large block sizes isn't with bandwidth, it's with the storage requirements of running a full node, and the time it takes to bring up a full new node.
- lawn 7y ago
  None of them are good arguments against a moderate blocksize increase, such as 2 MB or 4 MB. (Segwit is an extremely inefficient increase, which in practice only increases it from 1 MB to around 1.4 MB.) And none of these limits have been tested or examined by those who oppose it. The claim is, it seems, that the current limit is perfect. Or that hard forks are "too dangerous", despite coins like Ehereum, Monero and Bitcoin Cash proving that to be false again and again. And Bitcoin also had an emergency hard fork fix (which never split the chain) when they fixed the recent infinite inflation bug. Oh and they've had a hard fork once before too. Also with storage being so cheap it's not a valid argument. Time to propagate blocks between miners is the biggest, with initial sync coming in at a distant second.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  The 'problems' keep changing. Most people don't need or want to run a full node or even sync with the whole chain. Even so, anyone with $100 can buy 1 TB of SSD space and anyone who can stream netflix has an internet connection 600 times faster than the max throughput, so none of that is even close to being a problem either. People say this stuff as some sort of FUD theoretical, but who out there is actually having problems with a reasonable computer or internet connection? A $35 raspberry pi is overkill, this is not a real problem.

gruez 7y ago

>[...] while saying that throughput below a 144p YouTube video is too much data [...] That's a gross simplification of the issue. The problem with large block sizes isn't with bandwidth, it's with the storage requirements of running a full node, and the time it takes to bring up a full new node.

lawn 7y ago
None of them are good arguments against a moderate blocksize increase, such as 2 MB or 4 MB. (Segwit is an extremely inefficient increase, which in practice only increases it from 1 MB to around 1.4 MB.) And none of these limits have been tested or examined by those who oppose it. The claim is, it seems, that the current limit is perfect. Or that hard forks are "too dangerous", despite coins like Ehereum, Monero and Bitcoin Cash proving that to be false again and again. And Bitcoin also had an emergency hard fork fix (which never split the chain) when they fixed the recent infinite inflation bug. Oh and they've had a hard fork once before too. Also with storage being so cheap it's not a valid argument. Time to propagate blocks between miners is the biggest, with initial sync coming in at a distant second.
BubRoss 7y ago
The 'problems' keep changing. Most people don't need or want to run a full node or even sync with the whole chain. Even so, anyone with $100 can buy 1 TB of SSD space and anyone who can stream netflix has an internet connection 600 times faster than the max throughput, so none of that is even close to being a problem either. People say this stuff as some sort of FUD theoretical, but who out there is actually having problems with a reasonable computer or internet connection? A $35 raspberry pi is overkill, this is not a real problem.