4 ms·

>Maybe you should think about who the 'layman' is here. Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. > Blocks take fractions o

>Maybe you should think about who the 'layman' is here. Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. > Blocks take fractions of a second to verify. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. >I did all the math for you, you still have no evidence. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting.

CyberDildonics 4y ago
Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. There has been no sidestepping, I showed you real numbers and evidence, you showed me nothing. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. No, you keep harping on that even though it has no impact on decentralization. This one of the many weird talking points you keep lumping together without understanding what matters. If you have ever synced with the chain yourself you would know that CPU usage is practically nothing overall. Again, other currencies already deal with and have tested this stuff out. It's trivial. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This are predictions of a future that is already here for everyone else. You originally said it was all about bandwidth before being proved wrong with how absurd that idea is. Now it's "cloud hosting" even though people are running nodes off of raspberry pis and cable modems. Also you still haven't acknowledged all the other points, like how satoshi envisioned miners mostly running large nodes themselves. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This doesn't mean anything, and is just gish galloping. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting. This has been the line for almost 10 years now. Every other cryptocurrency has proved this wrong over and over. Why do you believe this in the face of overwhelming evidence and why do you even think non mining nodes matter? It's clear from your other messages that you don't understand the difference between non mining nodes and mining nodes. Here is the most important question though - where are you getting your information? I know you didn't come to these conclusions yourself, because you say the exact same ridiculous things as anyone who only reads /r/bitcoin. If it isn't from there where is it and why won't you link it?
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. >A $10/month VPS will have a 1 gigabit connection. >Larger blocks = more bandwidth and hd space = more time to download and fully validate. >You originally said it was all about bandwidth before being proved wrong with how absurd that idea is. Now it's "cloud hosting" even though people are running nodes off of raspberry pis and cable modems. If you continuously misrepresent what was said a few posts ago then I can tell this conversation is going nowhere and is a waste of time. You were the one that brought up vps pricing and hosting. I will move on now since it is clear you are out of your depth but good luck trying to change bitcoin. Just know there is good reason nobody will adopt your shortsighted ideas regardless of where you post them, reddit or elsewhere.
  - CyberDildonics 4y ago
    You were the one that brought up vps pricing and hosting. And you're response was "what about 100x the traffic" and the answer is, it would still work. If you continuously misrepresent what was said a few posts ago This didn't happen. All these conversations are the same because you're getting your information from the same place as other people saying the same thing. If a whole bunch of people say 1 + 1 = 3, it's pretty obvious they didn't all arrive at that conclusion independently. Why do you think non-mining nodes are so important? Why won't you link to where you got this idea in the first place? Why aren't you acknowledging all the parts of the bitcoin white paper that contradicts what you're saying? Also think about how much your arguments shifted. First it was 'bandwidth' and 'diskspace'. When I show you that's absurd you move to sync times. When I point out that you are talking about 1% CPU usage, your own numbers (two days over 13 years) back up what I'm saying and that lots of other currencies have already done what you're saying is impossible you move on to more inane arguments and finally say that you've already proved everything. I will move on now since it is clear you are out of your depth Right, the person who gave you a mountain of evidence, has read the server source code, has actually read the white paper (it's only a few pages) and understands the current state of other cryptocurrencies is out of their depth and you (who has given no actual evidence or a single external link to anything) is somehow an authority. This is delusion and we both know it. Link evidence for anything, link to where you 'learned' what you know. Back up what you're saying in any way at all.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

Its pretty clear by the sidestepping and bad calculations in your responses. There has been no sidestepping, I showed you real numbers and evidence, you showed me nothing. We were talking about spinning new nodes, why move the goal posts to make yourself sound reasonable? 10-100x the time it takes to download and fully validate 700,000 blocks in the big block world you want. No, you keep harping on that even though it has no impact on decentralization. This one of the many weird talking points you keep lumping together without understanding what matters. If you have ever synced with the chain yourself you would know that CPU usage is practically nothing overall. Again, other currencies already deal with and have tested this stuff out. It's trivial. Cloud hosting 10-100x (5-50TB) is not a one time $70 cost, not even close. Youre doing bad math. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This are predictions of a future that is already here for everyone else. You originally said it was all about bandwidth before being proved wrong with how absurd that idea is. Now it's "cloud hosting" even though people are running nodes off of raspberry pis and cable modems. Also you still haven't acknowledged all the other points, like how satoshi envisioned miners mostly running large nodes themselves. It's silly and we havent even touched the hardware update frequency required to store the volume of onchain spam this would introduce. This doesn't mean anything, and is just gish galloping. You may be out of your depth in this discussion. High degree of node centralization would be the outcome of the parameters you are proposing. I'm not surprised your posts get deleted from subreddits. Based on your description, the admins seem to expect users to think about 2nd order effects before posting. This has been the line for almost 10 years now. Every other cryptocurrency has proved this wrong over and over. Why do you believe this in the face of overwhelming evidence and why do you even think non mining nodes matter? It's clear from your other messages that you don't understand the difference between non mining nodes and mining nodes. Here is the most important question though - where are you getting your information? I know you didn't come to these conclusions yourself, because you say the exact same ridiculous things as anyone who only reads /r/bitcoin. If it isn't from there where is it and why won't you link it?

ashwagary 4y ago
>Layer 1 scaling is poor design. Larger blockchain = less nodes due to more expensive hardware requirements = more centralization. >A $10/month VPS will have a 1 gigabit connection. >Larger blocks = more bandwidth and hd space = more time to download and fully validate. >You originally said it was all about bandwidth before being proved wrong with how absurd that idea is. Now it's "cloud hosting" even though people are running nodes off of raspberry pis and cable modems. If you continuously misrepresent what was said a few posts ago then I can tell this conversation is going nowhere and is a waste of time. You were the one that brought up vps pricing and hosting. I will move on now since it is clear you are out of your depth but good luck trying to change bitcoin. Just know there is good reason nobody will adopt your shortsighted ideas regardless of where you post them, reddit or elsewhere.
- CyberDildonics 4y ago
  You were the one that brought up vps pricing and hosting. And you're response was "what about 100x the traffic" and the answer is, it would still work. If you continuously misrepresent what was said a few posts ago This didn't happen. All these conversations are the same because you're getting your information from the same place as other people saying the same thing. If a whole bunch of people say 1 + 1 = 3, it's pretty obvious they didn't all arrive at that conclusion independently. Why do you think non-mining nodes are so important? Why won't you link to where you got this idea in the first place? Why aren't you acknowledging all the parts of the bitcoin white paper that contradicts what you're saying? Also think about how much your arguments shifted. First it was 'bandwidth' and 'diskspace'. When I show you that's absurd you move to sync times. When I point out that you are talking about 1% CPU usage, your own numbers (two days over 13 years) back up what I'm saying and that lots of other currencies have already done what you're saying is impossible you move on to more inane arguments and finally say that you've already proved everything. I will move on now since it is clear you are out of your depth Right, the person who gave you a mountain of evidence, has read the server source code, has actually read the white paper (it's only a few pages) and understands the current state of other cryptocurrencies is out of their depth and you (who has given no actual evidence or a single external link to anything) is somehow an authority. This is delusion and we both know it. Link evidence for anything, link to where you 'learned' what you know. Back up what you're saying in any way at all.