Bitcoin Forum

All this talk is so wearing, I've been reading less and less on the forums and thinking.

When I got into bitcoin I saw something with massive potential to be disruptive technology. It looked to me like it could basically replace fiat currency, an opinion that I think was shared by a lot of people back in the day. Sure there was the whole get rich quick thing, and the insane volatility and the less cynical more funny community.

I still believe this fundamental idea that bitcoin can take over the world.

To do that it needs to grow though, and that's why "I am SGBETT and I am a big blocker"... but you all knew that already.

What seems to have happened though, is that a new idea has arisen. The idea that bitcoin *can't* scale, and should instead be used as some kind of settlement layer. That other things should be developed to provide the 'currency' style features.

What I am finding difficult is the whole debate seems to be now centred around the pro's and cons of two exclusive camps. BTC can *only* be store of value and settlement. BTC can *only* be cash. The participants have taken these as axiomatic truths and are arguing the pro's and cons.

At worst this is an intentional strategy, by characterising the argument in this way its easier to justify one position by radicalising the opposing view and arguing against it. At best its just misguided passion for what you believe in. A cynic might think its the former, but I am going to assume its the latter.

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

Concerns about full blocks are being used as a way to justify increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

Where does that leave us?

Well the followup work by Taleb describes Antifragility. This means positioning yourself to benefit massively/protecting yourself from loss should the unexpected happen, which it inevitably will.

Of course this perspective can be twisted to justify pro / anti block size increase. I'll leave it to the small blockers to give there explanation as to how keeping blocks small is antifragile.

My view though, is that having larger than you think you need blocks is antifragile. If there is an unprecedented surge in bitcoin use then transactions can increase massively, fees go up massively miners get paid, we all cheer because bitcoin adoption is taking off (we can surely agree that everyone would like to see adoption no?). If the blocks are much bigger than we need, and they are not needed, nothing happens. An antifragile view (imho) looks at both outcomes and checks to make sure neither results in tragedy.

Lets take centralisation. Massive blocks, really big regularly, means fewer people can run nodes etc. This could happen, but how badly? What constitutes unacceptable levels of centralisation, unacceptable as in 'terminal', can we define this? Is there an actual block size (not block size limit) that causes terminal centralisation? Do 8MB blocks cause this, 16MB, 32... ? Don't forget each doubling is 2 years, so we are already in 2020 before anyone could mine a 32 MB block.

Note, that is *could* mine a big block. If we don't need it, we don't use it, and thats the flip side of the centralisation argument. Nothing bad happens.

You can dissect all arguments for and against block size in this fashion, trying to figure out what course of action is most antifragile.

Fee market - in 2020 with 32 mb blocks. If they are full then a simple extrapolation may be that we have 32x the amount of current fees in a block (about 6BTC). Maybe average fee per transaction has declined tenfold and there is only 0.6BTC a block. Still, the block reward is 12.5BTC so we still aren't exactly in tragic failure mode. If we are still only doing the same volume as today then nothing bad happens.

The closest I think we can get to arguing 'something bad happens' is the terminal centralisation of mining. A hypothetical *extreme* scenario. The fee market argument doesn't hold up because we still have decades before the block size gets small enough that fees are relevant.

I can't fathom why anyone is trying to force a fee market right now whilst the block reward is still so big. The only reason I can see is greed, and that would perfectly fit with all of human history. Bitcoin is the goose laying golden eggs right now, and it feels to me like some people aren't happy with one egg a day.

Why reversion to the mean, because this is exactly what the banks are doing right now. The banks squeeze us for every penny, because they are greedy and we have no choice.

This fee market? Who do you think pays for it, and to whom?

Appeal to authority, yes.
Appeal to emotion, yes.

Isn't that the whole point, doing smart things that feel right. Learning from history. Don't make bitcoin 'the bank', don't let greedy men fool you - it was inevitable that once bitcoin started showing value it would attract those that seek to take that value for themselves.

Bitcoin should be for everyone. Bitcoin should replace 'fiat' money.

You've got it all wrong, just like back when you were suffering under the delusion BIP101 blocks were necessarily being mined by RealXT nodes.

In case you forgot about that, here's a reminder you often assume you know WTF you're talking about even when you actually do not.


Remember that?  And then slush came out and disclosed yes indeed, his 101 blocks were being spoofed?  Good times!  I like the part where you were wrong.  Please don't try to (once more) generalize this as me claiming I'm smarter than you; I'm only saying I know how Bitcoin works and you don't.  Generic IQ comparisons have little to do with it.

The XTurds haven't forgiven slush for that BTW.  They still call him a coward for shutting down the 101 port to avoid more DDOS, while simultaneously begging him to reopen it.  How dare he not support their agenda at his expense!   :D

Bigger blocks do not provide the scaling ability you're looking for.  8MB or 20MB will do NOTHING to help in the case of actual widespread adoption, which is exactly why it is imperative fee markets be developed ASAP.  Even if we tried to make bigger blocks, SPV-type mining incentives would simply create more empty ones and defeat the entire purpose (while still incurring the costs of increased externalities and decreased survivability).

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.


Like PR's considerations of spherical blockchains, your voluminous hypothetical nonsense ignores the fact no first mover will ever be able to defect from and thereby subvert Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority.  Anyone so foolish will be crushed by DDOS, Gavincoin shorts, and more.  Thus, everybody expects everyone else to go first.  And of course, nobody does.  Game over, newb...BIP000 wins!

We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually."

But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason.

So 'Not Tonight, Dear!'

Bitcoin does not scale efficiently on it's own. This is correct, and some developers have even stated this or something of similar meaning. This does not mean that we should not scale Bitcoin. This does not mean that we should only scale Bitcoin via block size increase either. You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop. What Bitcoin needs is a dynamic block size in a combination with the Lightning Network, sidechains, etc. Only then will Bitcoin be able to be used by the majority.

---

---

I concur. This is pretty much impossible due to the two things listed above (propagation times and orphans); impossible without the Lightning Network or something else.

or "please, please, don't increase block size now because ....?"

"You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop."

#R3KT

Because it's already a hassle to run a full node.

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....



A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

This is the essence of antifragile, to be wrong day after day, at a small cost. When the day hits that you are right, thats when the payoff comes, because doesn't matter how many times you post #REKT that one black swan will erase all of them.

I agree, we need a lightning network. So that when it becomes uneconomical to transact on chain, there is a backup. What I don't agree with is that uneconomical should be forced. Let the free market decide. Give the miners the headroom to discover the most cost effective block size. The stepped approach in BIP101 goes someway towards it, but really the system should be self regulating. No cap.

Propogation, orphan rates etc are engineering issues that will be solved when its worth solving them. Free market.

Lightning network will be implemented when its worth doing so. Free market.

Capitalism works, Unbridled it fails. Bitcoin is the reigns.

"Peter R: Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices"

This dubious correlation is the crux of the issue (as much as "big blockers" might deny it). The mooners want moon today, and the block size limit should have been lifted yesterday to enable that. Unfortunately, merely increasing capacity (and simultaneously opening Pandora's box for attack vectors that exploit block propagation delays) does not create organic adoption.

Why can't people wait until adoption and overcapacity actually warrant increasing block size? In the meantime, we need to address the lack of disincentives for spam/dust transactions that needlessly increase throughput requirements on the system.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

You are dumbfounded about something? That needs to go on record. Usually you have all the answers ;)

Yes you can't predict future events and so you should not take a course of action that is based on assuming something will or will not happen. Instead you should take a course of action that allows for (and positively embraces) the widest possible range of scenarios.

You have read Taleb haven't you, you know how antifragility works? You can see that imposing an artificial limit creates a fragile system? You are locked in to a particular view/model. If that model is not right then there is the potential for great loss.

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"?  How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_are_the_block_size_soft_limits.3F

 ::)

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

You're right! But I would posit that they don't need to agree, they all need to act in their own best economic interest and that the free market will decide the most efficient conditions. (one might argue that they would talk amongst themselves and come to some consensus as this would be in there best economic interest. they have before, though of course they may not again).

I accept this is somewhat of a leap of faith, but the opposite requires on being smarter than the average bear. Humans are not, we are married to the idea that we are smart, and blind to all our flaws as a result.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

This is not a "leap of faith", this is downright naive.

I'm sorry but what you posit is straight up nonsense. The miners are not a group, there is no such thing as "their own best economic interest". It is a competitive environment and they seek profit first and foremost. Miners with the most resources will set a limit beyond what the smallest players are capable of handling to eventually drive them out of the market.

You are right that they have talked amongst themselves before, it was to organize this SPV mining scheme that succeeded in causing a fork of the network. Are you really suggesting we trust these guys to do what's best "for the greater good"!?

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.

You are so dumb.

There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization".

If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me.

The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node.

Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network.

A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK.

Small nodes in a peer-to-peer network aren't irrelevant in any way. They help on validating blocks and tx, so they play a major role in the whole network.

If they can't level up, they are irrelevant.

There is such a thing. Either you are decentralized or you are not, there is no in between. Making it difficult to run a node =! centralized. Running nodes being out of reach from YOU =! centralized.

I'd agree. I don't need brg444 to run a node. I can run my own. If brg444 needs brg444 to run a node, then brg444 needs to pony up and get it run.


Miners the group is made up of many individual miners. An individual miner is on balance likely to do what is best for itself. It is not naive to rely on an individual acting in their own best interests.

Miners that mine really big blocks to try and force out smaller players face the risk of a smaller player mining a smaller block faster and orphaning the big block. Thats a really simplified example. Reality is far more complicated. So much so that its very difficult to know for sure exactly what will happen - that to me is the leap of faith. Before Peter R went bonkers with his GIF he did put together a paper which, albeit not perfect, was a good model. Yes, spherical cow etc thing is its the closes to a model we have seen, and it intuitively makes sense because it is analogous to well understood economic theory on supply and demand.

What are the chances that the economics around blockchain resources broadly confirm to the simple principals of supply and demand and price discovery?

What are the chances that some entirely novel and as yet previously unseen economic model independently arises that entirely screws up the whole of bitcoin?

I dunno based on balance of probability though I'd say A: That the market can figure all this shit out and that we don't need to try and impose artificial constraints.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_good_enough

You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute.

You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams :)

We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in datacenters.

FTFY

For anything else, there is an altcoin.

Decentralized datacenters

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/60/3d/b0/603db088bfc439746087637584a11833.gif

Datacenters decentralized all over the world the same way the internet was created by the US military to decentralize their datacenters.

This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)

If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible.

"Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption"

Op,

why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?

Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains.

Not a big loss, smh

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

What level of fee people are comfortable with?

As far as I know, currently no one complains about the fee since they are almost neglectable if you are transacting anything more than 0.1 bitcoin

I tell you a real world example: A professor from china just visited me, and I told her to send me bitcoin for all her expenses so that I will give her euro to spend during her trip in Europe, and that will save her lots of time and fee from international bank transfer/exchange. But she complains a lot while she is opening an account in chinese bitcoin exchange. She doesn't want to save a couple of day's time and a couple of percent fee just because large bank makes her feel more comfortable

So you can see, even a wise professor would still not care about those fee of 3 percents when she is doing international transactions, how come the average people complain about the fee of bitcoin which is almost non-existent?

I think the pain point of fee for average people is around 5%, but the lower the education level, the higher it is. Many people trust western union to send money to their home country with ridiculously high 10+% fee, and they are still fine with it

So the fee still have magnitudes of room to rise without causing problem for adoption. And if some people think fee is too high, they would just combine several transactions and reduce the transaction frequency. So when the block is full, if everyone cut down their frequency by half, the block will immediately become half empty again. So a full block will not cause any problem for users, but will first cause problem for nodes if they have any infrastructure weakness

I love reading stuff when I don't have a clue about what I'm reading.
Are you guys seriously concerned about this or are you just bantering because you're getting paid to do so? You all do it well, whatever it is you're doing, and I really do enjoy reading things I don't understand. So Tally- ho, or whatever I mean. Maybe you've got some ideas that would support the price of a bitcoin.

Your quotes are irrelevant because bitcoin will still be P2P and decentralized.

That is the default position...

Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin ;)

There you go again, trying to sell XT using the fear of Bitcoin dying.

Bitcoin is stronger than ever, in part thanks to the adversity provided by the attempted Gavinista governance coup.

You XTurds truly deserve to be exiled together on the Island of Misfit Gavinistas.

Such strange bedfellows the failed putsch has created!  It sounds like a joke...

Frap.doc (a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist), Peter R (a clueless spherical cow counter), and J Trolfi (King Buttcoin) walk into Satoshi's bar.

2 hours later, united by their common hatred of Team Core, they are giggling like long lost sisters.

"Let's get out of here" says Frap.doc.  "Yes," responds Peter R, "the drinks are terrible, and the pours are too small!"   :D

Are you trying to make a credible point? Because I don't see any.

I think what iCEBREAKER said is on point, basically to sum it, there's no way raising the blocksize to 20, or even 8mb will get you anywhere close to where we need to be. There's no way around something like blockstream if you want to achieve VISA level transactions in the future. I am in favour of raising it a bit, but have in mind, there is no huge scalability possible if everything happens on chain.

I agree big blocks aren't *the* solution to scaling.

What Ice'n'Berg won't accept is that the block size limit should be increased or removed so that it doesn't cause a problem. They argue that is using fear to justify it, when anyone with a shred of common sense can see its just prudence.

Fear of centralisation is a concern, and for that reason I'd say that right now removing the limit entirely is probably equally risky as keeping at 1MB.

The mundane truth, as ever, is that somewhere in the middle is likely best.

http://www.coindesk.com/could-card-networks-take-bitcoin-mainstream/

Simply sign a service agreement with VISA/Mastercard/AE and be done with the micro transaction capacity debate

Interesting, can you imagine the drama if the card networks pulled the rug right from under block stream. Might even warrent a #rekt