Bitcoin Forum

This post really inspired me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/

Let's talk about it. 

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

segwit = core(blockstream) job security of their Tier network they want. and able to slide in trojans more easily(going "soft will be easier") without node/pool votes due to use of bribes(fee discount) and blackmails(PoW algo changes) to try getting them to that point.

where as dynamics, with simple lines of code changes which many implementations (bar core hesitant group) have already got, allows diverse peers to work with consensus so that they are all on the same playing field where both node and pools have to come to an agreement else it wont change.

One thing I know is that because it is big doesn't mean is better, I think the problem with some miners is fear of the unknown. I still believe for now SegWit is the best available solution on the table

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

the small blockers never said that they like small blocks man, they are saying that they don't like big block, but prefer to go another route, well in the end only miners and exchange decide, nothing a average user can do for this


no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

Try running a coin with just miners and no nodes then. Nodes represent the community, and it's not like if exchanges disappeared no more trades would occur (member back when there were no exchanges? Did the coin die without them? exactly)

You are incorrect.
Good exchanges usually have their own Validator Nodes, they do not defer to Miners.

Validator Nodes maintain and enforce the protocol, not miners.
Miners build blocks based on the node enforced protocol.

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.


Where is all this misinfo about Nodes being worthless coming from lately? Pretty sad.
This is a fundamental Bitcoin understanding. If it wasn't true, then Miners have
absolute free will and that has not occurred in the past nor currently.

That another route is called SegWit and has a conflict of interests in favor of small blocks.
Unlimited implementation makes SegWit unnecessary.

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

The block chain is not decided by proof-of-ip or proof-of-developers, it is decided by proof-of-work.
Therefore, the chain with more computing power will always prevail.
Therefore, the decision is of the miners and they are influenced directly to the market price.
This is the consensus of Nakamoto as I understand it.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide.  You have yourself a nice day.  ;D

It not that "I didn't like it". It's that whoever wrote it started throwing shit about two sentences in. If you can't make an argument without calling someone names, then you are just wasting my time.

1. it's reddit (basically SFW 4chan) 2. IMO it's reflective of the atmosphere in the community right now...can't get your point across unless you're capslocking everything with swears and names

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

The current upward trend is a proves market will always wins. Btu which try to bring disharmony to bitcoin community and centralized bitcoin is enemy of this community. What we the traders want is increase in the value of bitcoin and I am praying for bitcoin to remains decentralized.

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.
this is why segwit  has their segwit pstream tier network to strip blocks to 'fake it' to appear as a block that follows old rules to fake it passed nodes. but nodes can ip ban segwit filter nodes if they so wish to.

much like segwit can ban and orphan non segwit nodes and blocks.

Wait, is that why the percentage for segwit acceptance vary so much? I'm going to assume BU has the same issue

To me it seems more like a centralized core dev team vs a bunch of chinese miner oligarchs.

In the end, though, I think you are right that the market always wins. That doesn't really equate to whoever has the most mining power, though, but rather where the money of the users is. If more (rich) people wants to buy Core bitcoins that Unlimited bitcoins, then I would say Core wins (or vice versa).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes has weight, that weight is about only 40$/m per node.
Why do you think that the deployment of nodes is a big problem for the miners?

IMO it's a problem for the community as a whole, while anyone can be a node so normal users can still have a vote in things, the possibility of "fake" nodes being hosted by sides of the fork to skew numbers is increasingly higher

and nodes can ban obvious sybil nodes by ip banning certain 'servers'

Validator Node Consensus is not "Nakamoto Consensus".
Miner Node Consensus is not "Nakamoto Consensus".
"Nakamoto Consensus" still exists if Miners & Validators are both being asked to
signal/vote together. At one time, either side could not dictate to the other, but
this is now the case.

Choosing to use one of the two parties (Miners or Validators) to determine a protocol
or bug/fix change to the code is valid, since it is possible to do now, since ASICs
caused the splitting of "Nakamoto Consensus". The splitting has allowed for new ways
to "upgrade" the Bitcoin network. Whether those new ways are good or overall harmful
to the system as a symbiotic organism, is dependent on if a party disagrees with the
proposal. If all can agree, any method of upgrade is appropriate, whether by pool/miner
or nodes.

My statements about how Consensus works now does not mean that things can be
implemented, since Yes, the other symbiotic systems need to participate eventually
as well. If other systems hold out indefinitely, then nothing is actually accomplished.

There is very likely miscommunication, since I do not understand what you are getting at.

But, GPU, ASIC, or Quantum Mining, do not equal CPU. That is impossible.
Validator Nodes are the only mechanism to prevent miners from breaking rules.
Miners today have the power to break rules because 1 CPU has become 1 ASIC.
If 1 CPU = 1 ASIC, then Miners could not threaten hardforks, it would still be all
or nothing with upgrades.

"Weight" of Nodes is irrelevant. Validator Nodes currently are altruistic.
Profit is worthless since Validator Nodes run on ideology. Their current Ideology
is the current protocol implementation or what they individually signal for.

Deployment of Validator Nodes are not a big problem for Miners, as long as Miners
do not attempt to break the rules. If Miners think they have more power or "weight"
than Validators, then Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.
Miners do not do this because the knowledgeable Miners understand what I am saying.

Exchanges, Businesses, Users, & etc (Economies) are the Validator Nodes. If Miners
will not hardfork without Exchanges, they are saying they need Validator Nodes.

Man, you guys are killing me.  Ok, so, I shutdown my Core version of Bitcoin and downloaded/installed the BU version.  I will switch back if I want to.

https://coin.dance/blocks is the place to watch the drama?

I am not happy.  I want the two camps to come together.  This might be impossible given human nature but it is what I want.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen (https://coin.dance/blocks/historical).

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now?  Where would one go to see such?

And that is what we are all waiting for.

I think I know what will happen, but we will only know when the
Miners contentiously hardfork. Otherwise, they aren't going to get what
they think they want since the Validator Nodes majority don't want on
On-Chain scaling right now at this point in time.

I have already resigned myself into thinking it is inevitable now.
So lets do this already if they have the brains and balls.

---

No, only after the hardfork occurs, and when it does, you will know it
happened because shit will go crazy in ever Bitcoin sector.

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion.  Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading.  Economic majority is what counts.  If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

?? You're only confusing yourself. By going the unlimited route you are encouraging a fork.

I haven't decided myself. Seems a fork is over all bad as it adds to confusion for the man on the street. BTC's appeal is it's brand name. I never got into this to buy cheese burgers. It's simply a store of value.

Frankly, I'm surprised someone doesn't make a >1MB block and ignite this.  What's keeping them from doing it?  Good behavior?  I can't do it; I don't command enough hashing power.

It obvious. They don't have the support of the economic majority or it would have happened ages ago.

While nodes don't really get a vote, they may represent one.

If I had to venture a guess, people with large amounts of bitcoin also are the type of people who will want the obvious advantages that comes from using a full node as your wallet software.

Clearly this is only speculation on my part, but I think it makes sense.

If you read the last paragraph of my prior posting:

Quoted an another thread:


If there is unanimous consensus and well connected nodes between groups 1 & 2, group 3 basically has no choice but to follow. If they don't, their transactions don't get confirmed and their UTXO's simply become unspendable in the system making other coins more valuable.

Correct, and this is all that I was trying to say above, but didn't include
SPV nodes because those are not validating and don't even store the blockchain.

So either some Bitcoin community members in general do not understand that difference
between SPV Nodes and Validating Nodes, or are trying to confuse it for others as
it relates to the current hardfork issue. Nodes are not worthless compared to Miners,
unless those people are referring to SPV Nodes in comparison to Miners.

(My only issue with above quote is that for #3, some are based on the validating of #2.
Also, #3 could be a few validators, but of course most are surely using SPV today and
likely very into the future.)

What I am trying to say, is that even if validating user nodes reject blocks produced by the miners, as long as the miners and businesses are well connected and working on the same consensus protocol, the validating user nodes just become unsynced (They no longer have the longest chain). They then upgrade to be compatible with the network and catch up with the full chain.

So full node consensus is not required, as long as there is consensus between miners and businesses, a protocol upgrade can go ahead.

No, Validating nodes and/or Business nodes have no reason to follow the miners.
In fact, the miners are following them. If the miners do not, that is called a contentious
hardfork or an accidental hardfork. One will reorg and the other is a new protocol chain.

If the miners goes off track, Business nodes and/or validating nodes won't follow the miner.
That would defeat the purpose of having a distributed decentralized validation network.

BU nodes, that exist today, exist to support a contentious hardforked chain.
in normal situations where everyone is happy, you don't need BU nodes since the CORE or
OTHER nodes would implement signaling for a very long time before the hardfork.

The term "hardfork" is from the perspective of the nodes, not the miners. So for example, if
Miners had the power to hardfork at will and nodes must follow, then a hardfork does not exist
since there is always one chain in almost all cases. "Hardforks" exist because Business nodes
and/or Validator nodes have some influence and/or power.

I'm talking about a specialised situation here, where the miners and businesses are directly connected to each other. If the miners and businesses are running the same new consensus protocol, any valid blocks created by miners will be validated by the business nodes. User nodes will reject them unless they upgrade to the new consensus protocol.
If however, business nodes are connecting to the miners through user nodes, then the user nodes may invalidate the miner blocks and not pass them onto the business nodes.

If that were true, we wouldn't need proof of work.  We could use proof-of-non-sybil-node.  Now *that*'s a boy of a consensus algorithm  ;D

In fact, we should have a guy with a web site that publishes the IP of all the good nodes (according to him) that are entitled to vote, what about such a consensus system ?  :D

Of course, but that is not what is occurring now and is purely hypothetical.

First, businesses and miners are not "directly" connected.
They only "connect" through interpretation of the ledger data that is enforced by the protocol.
The nodes enforce this protocol. Your situation doesn't exist yet and hasn't in the past.

You are essentially describing collusion and manipulation between the miners and the markets
in order to circumnavigate the remaining Consensus Mechanism. It is form of breaking Bitcoin.
Bitcoin was intended to allow for changes by Consensus, not by going outside Consensus.




You are mistaken.
Business Nodes are all Validating Nodes, they cannot defer to Miner Nodes ever.

In your statement above, if Business Nodes connected to SPV Nodes (user Nodes), then
Business Nodes would be vulnerable to attacks and false chain info and so they can never
defer as well. Business Nodes are by their financial and legal nature need all to be Validators.
Any business node that is not a validator is at risk for attack or legal liabilities depending on
the business that they provide.

No one needs to "connect" to miners, they are only performing work to build valid blocks.
The Valid blocks are approved to the current blockchain version by the Validating Node network.
If a miner builds a bad block, Validators reject it and the miner loses any incentive.

For Miners to have a new protocol, they need Nodes to support them, not follow them.
Nodes do not follow by their nature since they are incentivized by Ideologies and not profit.

Yes, but this kind of collusion could exist using -connect option for example.



In this case I should have said 'validating user nodes' to be clear.

So what I am trying to say is non-upgraded validating user nodes do not have a strong effect on consensus, as long as the main economic players can find each other.

Obviously. But FYI, directly connecting and trusting a miner goes against Bitcoin. We are here with
Bitcoin so that we do not need to trust any single entity, but the validated ledger itself.

In addition, why would Business Nodes that are Validators want to join the Miners into unknown territory?
By the nature of markets and businesses, they want a sure bet, not a gamble. You going to rely
your business on something that could collapse and possibly never recover from?

To Join the miners who wish to perform a contentious hardfork, would be shooting yourself in the foot.
In fact, that is why the exchanges recently made statements about how they would handle the chains.
They did not say "we will follow", they said, "we will do both to protect users from this violation of Consensus".
If everything was done as Satoshi "envisioned" there would always be one chain, as thus no violations.

The hypothetical situation I was considering is one where you have unanimous agreement between miners and business of a protocol change, but a majority of users do not upgrade their software because they are unaware of the change. You can't send them an alert any more. The result is still one chain, but inefficient propagation through the user validating node relay network.

In the situation that you describe, that would be a "Non-Contentious Hardfork",
and previously if something like this was to occur, people wished that the activation
threshold would be over 90% to ensure a single chain. That would basically be that
the whole community is essentially in mass agreement. The 10% loss would be
considered a very low risk and worthy of the dice roll.

Really good, he has some points. This problem should be resolved since last year before those transaction out of capacity.
I just realize that : Bitcoin was meant to hard fork from time to time as a full-node referendum aka hard fork (or simply via a flag day - which Satoshi proposed years ago in 2010 to remove the temporary 1 MB limit). Mr. Satoshi has mentioned about this problem, why we should wait for years to move forward. Bitcoin need to be adjusted according to the market demands regards transaction.

This isn't going to be a very long post right here as I have just one question.

Do you guys think the block halving has alot to do with the increase in fees ? Some interesting opinions here though. I'm interested to see how you all feel about that.

Well, I really don’t see it that way, big Chinese companies through their moneys to the bitcoin market trying to dominate the mining  market which means that they control the exchanging services.

It is true that it is not controlled by the Chinese government in specific but that still means that they affect the prices of the bitcoin by some way, like what happened in February when the Chinese government made some regulations on the exchanges we witnessed a change in value of the bitcoin.

This is causing a lot of controversy, and a lot of different opinions are raised around the issue of segwit and bitcoin unlimit. And I think you are right, the market always wins, when miners have the right to choose their own form of investment and investment, the market has the power to decide the level of supply and demand they can choose from. Buyers, and miners will have to accept a bitcoin discount to a certain level, which they can sell their product, which is a disadvantage, bitcoin unlimit is a greed and they will have to pay the price. If the market refuses. The market always wins.

It is my first time reading this kind of information and it enables me to think deep and do some research. If the exchanges have a validator nodes then there is no need for the core developers and BU to go against its other and there is no longer need for a consensus. If the exchanges can make the miner follow by the rules then the exchanges should set one universal code so that the miners will not have a conflict anymore.

For me this questions pertains to why markets always wins, it's because in business you don't wanted that your capital to sink down to profit loss; that's why market always balanced the rule of supply and demand. As the result of reality market always prevails in the long journey of price fluctuations beyond the entire bitcoin price history since last year's colorful world of digital currency.

In theory you are correct.
The issue is that exchanges are incentivized by profits.
So, is it more profitable for them to have one token on their exchange or two tokens?
Some may choose only to list one token because of future value loss/belief/ideology,
but other exchanges may not.

Exchanges will follow what their users would "want", and that is usually "choice".
So Exchanges do not need to follow miners, but they do need to follow their users.

The miners are not the markets, it is the exchanges and users.

Exchanges make profits if people EXCHANGE coins.  The more you can exchange coins, the more profits they make.  They don't care about "picking the right coin" - they don't speculate on coins, they win from users exchanging coins.

The day bitcoin splits, every bitcoin holder will have two coins, one on both chains.   Most users will be polarised, and want to get rid of one to obtain more of the other.   Essentially the WHOLE BITCOIN MARKET CAP will be exchanged.  No exchange wants to miss out on such an opportunity of exchanging coins !

Crypto is a joke where there is fresh meat (called "users") paying for a whole ecosystem of industrials, from miners to exchanges.  And the funny thing is, the users pay for all this because they think they will get rich that way!

Yes, but that assume there will not be major financial loss in Bitcoins Market Cap
due to allowing two separate coins on two separate chains to "fight it out". You are
assuming that the prices of both coins will either be leveled or higher than the
current Bitcoin Total Market Cap. Some do not think this will happen and we will
have major losses for a few months to years.

Don't compare Altcoin splits being traded on exchanges to Bitcoin splits traded on
exchanges. In the Altcoin version, the average person doesn't care, but in the Bitcoin
version, it is a possible coin failure from the foundational Satoshi principals. That is 
why it is important there is no two fighting chains. It damages the whole ecosystem.

Exchanges are forced to accept a split because of profits and demand, but it could
cause them all to go out of business within the next year if things go very bad. Their
companies success assumes Bitcoin will not be a failed coin in the future.

Maybe sensible heads will prevail:

http://www.coindesk.com/major-bitcoin-scaling-meeting-take-place-may/