Bitcoin Forum

why is nobody talking about BIP1xx
https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki

who knew there could be so many possible solutions to scaling bitcoin  :P

I'm pretty sure that if we keep this up we will never reach an agreement. Why not just somehow implement the calculating from this proposal into BIP100 (remove the miners voting) and we could all be happy.
Then BIP100 would sound much better than and we would already have something that people are aware of.

I'd like to see some comments from the developers though.

Because:

- Scaling based on previous block size allows a single motivated attacker to spam the block chain so that all blocks are full.  This would result in a doubling of the block size cap.  Rinse, repeat.  The net result is that the block size cap is effectively non-existant.  If you think BIP 101 grows too fast, BIP 1xx can be forced to grow at ludicrous speed.

- Depending on previous block size and transaction fee would mitigate this. HOWEVER: That's as far as they've gotten with the idea. There is no actual proposal that factors fees.

To keep the Max cap increasing, attacker needs to keep burning his coins. And once he burns out, the cap will automatically scale down. In reality, an attacker, who is willing to burn his coin can always play with bitcoin network. Recent spam experiments prove that beyond doubt. On the other hand, BIP 101 only monotnously increase the max cap, without accounting for the market demand. It does not adjust the max cap with decreasing demand for space in blocks.

This allows a market for Tx fee bidding, so that miners be subsidized when block reward goes down. Parameters may be fine tuned. But, BIP 1xx is the best proposal in my opinion.

its too bad BIP1xx isnt getting any love its so good.

How would it ? Gregory Maxwell aka BlockStream is not assigning a BIP no. to it, though it is long been discussed on the bitcoin-dev list.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/subject.html#10285

I like the dynamics of this proposal.

Its important that the blocksize is able to adjust both up and down. As mentioned above, a spammer can increase it yes but with each step it would become more and more expensive to maintain and once the 'attack' is over the block sizes scale down again in line with the actual demand of the network.

We do not know what the demand will be like a month or a year or even a decade from now so the best solution is one that's based on actual usage. Large scale adoption could happen next year or it might only happen in 5 years time. Working on a model that just increases the block size based on assumptions of what the actual demand will be at a certain point in time is in my opinion flawed and will bring us right back to where we are now discussing block sizes.

The exact same cost is incurred if ANY spammer wants to fill blocks.  Anyone willing to accept that as a safety net should have zero problem with the exponential growth in BIP 101, since that increase in maximum block size will have zero effect on the actual block size unless they're filled.  If they're being filled by commerce, great!  If they're being filled by spammers, then at least there is a hard cap with BIP 101.  BIP 1xx does not have the safety of that hard cap.

BIP 1xx as written also has the reverse problem.  A few miners can collude to restrict transaction volume in their blocks, causing a repeated halving of block size CAP.  A rational minority miner who would otherwise be willing to include all those transactions will find his block size restricting repeatedly.

I realize that these two scenarios are mutually exclusive - they can't both happen simultaneously.  Further, I would agree that neither of them is particularly likely.  The problem I have is that I don't see a rational reason to accept these possibilities.  BIP-101 does not allow for either of these (unlikely, but terrible) outcomes.  It follows a predictive curve, just like block rewards.

We are never going to reach an agreement.  The sides are way to far apart.

Just do XT/BIP101 and fork the thing.  If people want to try a dynamic adjustment and cannot meet eye-to-eye with the Hearnian people or small-blockists, fork three ways.  Then each side goes on their merry way and makes the best of the basic strategy they've chosen.

It's not even relevant to say 'let the best man win.'  There are advantages and disadvantages to each strategy.  Forking the blockchain is the best way to realize the advantages of each.

I firmly believe that this strategy is the best way to move Satoshi's ideas (whatever they may be) forward, and while there might be some argument that it would damage certain things about Bitcoin they are philosophically fairly weak and the damage being done by trying to make dogs and cats live together in harmony will be far worse.

merchants would be even more confused than they are today about how to accept "Bitcoin", if we split bitcoin now bitcoin dies.

what is bitcoin? well which one? there are 3 and they're all exactly the same expect there treament of blocklimit.

that'll destroy bitcoin.

With BIP 101, spammers can continue to spam blocks and know for certain that for a few years they can both start another debate and the cost of continuous spam does not change that much. With BIP 1xx, the cost of spamming full blocks will double every two weeks, thus making it incredibly expensive to maintain a prolonged spam attack on Bitcoin. With the same amount of money, a spam attack would last a shorter amount of time if BIP 1xx was implemented than with BIP 101.

BIP 101 allows for a spammer to continuously fill blocks for a prolonged period of time, and thus sparking another debate like this on about how the block size limit is too small. It can cause a scenario like what we have now.

That's what I mean by 'philosophically fairly weak'.

There should be no problem with merchants or anyone else either accepting or not accepting certain flavors.  Having a USD, a EURO, a Yuan, etc has not killed commerce.  If such a trivial thing is so difficult for them they would not be able to run a business in the first place, and from the consumer end, anyone who could not figure it out probably belongs in a nursing home.

Anyway, merchants decisions will likely be made for them when the obtain a crypto-currency license from the state.

At some point you need to come to terms with the fact that making a baloney argument then following it up with a declaration like "that'll destroy bitcoin." is simply not a strategy which works on everyone.  Probably not even a majority of people, and right about zero percentage of thinking people who matter.

LOL

wtv man try it and watch everyone back away from bitcoin and then run like hell.

its not a bad idea to have different implementations of bitcoin competing, i think the alt coins do just that, and splitting bitcoin over this tiny detail is going to do lot more harm then good.

Bitcoin is not like linux, which can have different flavor. It is a medium of exchange and a medium of exchange requires trust. If bitcoin splits, that would severely hamper that trust.

It's not a 'tiny detail' to me in the slightest.  It cuts to the very heart of what distributed crypto-currencies are and what they are realistically good for.


That is simply not true in my case.  What is 'hampering trust' in my mind is the 'Free Shit Nation' gaggle of hangers-on who demand free transactions that are subsidized by others because that is how life has always worked for them.  I would love to wave them goodbye and wish them the best on their bloatchain fork then be able to move forward building a rock solid and truly distributed foundation which would have a multitude of uses.  Including, ironically, many opportunities for the 'Free Shit Minions' to get exactly what they are after.

Seems you support the bidding of Tx fee to subsidize miners while block subsidy goes down. In that case, Proposal 2 of BIP 1xx might interest you.

Personally, I am undecided about this. Because one of the reason many people got attracted towards bitcoin was very cheap or almost no transfer cost. For those who thinks the same may like Proposal 1 of BIP 1xx.

Talks about BIP's are finally converging, and scaling is also a nice option... I voted no preference anyways. I think BIP 100 and 101 have a bit to learn about each other ;) The virtue is in the middle. And maybe for the future we can think of scaling solutions. Or even now! Who knows... But scaling has some visible flaws as seen on this thread ;) Also, BIP100 allows enough scalability...

It sounds like you have the idea of spamming blocks backwards.  Spammers can't block legitimate transactions - the best they can hope is to delay no-fee transactions.  A block isn't filled with the first transactions that a miner sees - the miner decides which transactions to include, based on the transaction size/priority/fee.

This is not what the block size cap is there to combat.  The anti-spam limit of 1MB is there to prevent a spammer from filling the hard drives of every node operator.  This is why we're not discussing moving to unlimited block size.

With BIP 101, there is no more incentive for spammers to attack than there is right now - and there has never been a spam attack in the history of Bitcoin.

With BIP 1xx, there is absolutely something that a motivated spammer could do - they could directly control the cap, moving it higher and higher.  As I said previously though, that's not really what I worry about.  I worry about the reverse.  Miners can truncate blocks, and directly control how much other miners can include in their blocks.  It allows crippling of the open-market transaction processing that we now have.  Why abdicate this to the miners - a group that has previously advocated for smaller blocks with the stated rationale that it may force higher transaction fees?  It is the fox guarding the henhouse.

And no, miners can't do this right now.  Yes, they can control their own blocks, but all it takes is any one miner to allow those other transactions in with small/no fee.  This is a check against the monopoly that could result from BIP 1xx.

BIP 1xx is union rules for miners.  Those rogue miners who will process all your low-fee transactions?  They could be branded scabs, and the union masters could shrink the block size so far that the transaction fees are forced higher regardless of the remaining miners.

Those spam transactions can delay low fee transactions for a long time.

Where were you a month ago when someone was spamming transactions? Don't give me BS about a "stress test" it was most definitely a spam attack. It caused 80000 unconfirmed txs, many of them legitimate.

While that is possible, you need to see it the way that miners see it and do some cost-benefit analysis.

Preventing transactions could cause several negative outcomes for miners. They would be losing out on transaction fees if a fee market doesn't develop. If the blocksize goes too low or fees go too high, people might just stop using Bitcoin causing the price to drop and thus miners are losing money. An increased backlog of transactions can negatively impact the full node by filling its mempool to the point that the node just crashes.

The only positive that could come out of causing small blocksizes would be the possibility of a fee market, which compared to the risks, is not something they would attempt with their already small profit margins

Also, if you think that miners would do this, then why are so many of them voting for 8 MB blocks?

A solution to this problem you present would be to create a lower bound on the blocksize limit. It would be that the maximum blocksize cannot go any lower than say 1 MB (or any other number you like).

well, if people don't emit bitcoin without fees ... at the first step  ::)

I dislike the whole approach of BIP1xx.  The proposal(s) attempt to set a block size limit by considering first and foremost the demand for block space.  Centralisation concerns are completely neglected for the sake of capacity.

The problem is not that blocks are being filled, it is that blocks are being filled despite the fact that today's technology can accommodate a well-decentralised network with larger blocks.  We don't have an infinity of resources that we can just dynamically raise the block size limit into, but we do have some resources which the 1MB limit prevents us from employing.

The obvious course of action is to do nothing until it is needed which would probably be years from now.  All these hysterics about the block size are a fabricated PR stunt.  A surprisingly effective one at that.

Miners are almost as big a problem as the no-fee Free Shit Nation people and there is an association which is beyond the scope of this note.  I hope that the skilled people in the community make the best of this manufactured 'crisis' and get rid of that problem as well by adjusting the POW scheme.  I'm not holding my breath for that though.

Perhaps there needs to be a balance struck somewhere between BIP1xx and BIP100.  BIP1xx only considers the demand for block space, but BIP100 only considers what benefits the miners and not the network as a whole.  The prospect of having an entity choose a variable that primarily benefits them still doesn't sit well with me, when we can define it algorithmically like we do with everything else.  BIP100, as it currently stands, simply places too much emphasis and power on one side.

To save all the arguing, the compromise we should all agree on is to find a solution that splits the demand for block space and the demand for decentralisation 50/50.  Can we at least agree on that much?  Something that maintains an equilibrium between resources, incentive and capacity.  That way almost everyone gets what they want.  Almost.  I know some people (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157005.msg12247073#msg12247073) think the demand for block space shouldn't be considered at all and that centralisation concerns are the only thing that's important, but clearly they're not going to budge on that, so frankly they can get left behind if they aren't willing to make even the slightest concessions.  One way or another, the blocksize is increasing, it's just agreeing on how to implement it in a stable way.

Firstly, nice post.  You've helped me focus a bit better on the issues.

"demand for block space" and "decentralisation" are necessarily measured on different scales.  As a result, there is no real "50/50" here.

As far as deriving a balance algorithmically goes, notice that such an algorithm must have as inputs "block space demand" and "level of decentralisation".  Bitcoin can easily fathom the first but has no way of measuring the second.  As far as Bitcoin knows, the entire Bitcoin system to date could be nothing more than a simulation on a single machine.  Bitcoin has to be told about this "decentralisation" thing by us humans, either by setting core parameters (kicking the can) or setting up some kind of voting.

Of course, humans respond to incentives.  If care is not taken to make sure these incentives align with choosing/voting good parameters, Bitcoin will degrade in the long term.  Miner voting is a fairly clever attempt because miners typically do have an incentive to help Bitcoin succeed.  Unfortunately, each miner is also driven to control as large a piece of the transaction-fee pie as they can, throwing the quality of the data gathered through voting into question.

I've tried to think of some way to have humans vote/bet on good block size limits where their financial incentives are more clearly aligned with Bitcoin's long-term health (like provably locking up bitcoins for 10 years to vote) but have had no real success yet.  Ugly though it may seem, I currently believe the can-kicking BIP101 proposal is the best under consideration.

Two years ago the average block size was 120k.  One year ago it was 220k.  Now it is 400k.  That shows nearly a doubling of block size per year.  And that's average block size - the peaks are of course much higher.  This kind of change should not be rolled out at the last minute.  If the uncertainty of the block size cap change isn't hurting adoption now, it will be soon.

The blocks are chock full of trivial nonsense transaction which don't belong there.  When each on-chain transaction represents thousands of off-chain coffee purchases and a few $100,000+ (equiv) transactions from people/entities balancing their risk and it still fills up and push fees into the start of the area that banks charge for (much lesser) service, then we start to need a solution to what is currently a non-problem.  That is why I say 'years'.

Of course you and I dis-agree about where the value of Bitcoin lies.  I see your argument as being:  "Oh no!  The cake I bake every night is almost gone by the morning because the mice are eating it.  Need to start baking bigger cakes."  My argument is that the mice are shitting all over the house and tearing up the pillows and there is no reason to cater to them.  I actually don't want the little buggers to starve to death and I have an infinite supply of food with a little development work so I could let them feed to their heart's content outdoors.

The trouble with your argument (as I see it) is that bloating the blockchain to support all uses for everything on-chain is destined to destroy the solution completely as a support mechanism for nearly infinite subordinate chains.  That is why I will fight with all my effort to avoid this.

I cannot deny that some of the people who hold more BTC than I and/or who were in the game longer than I simply see things differently.  That is why I strongly favor simply forking the blockchain itself (via XT or dynamic adjustments or whatever) and letting both sides just move forward with their own philosophies.

No, my argument is: Let the market decide which transactions get in.  Don't have an artificial cap that prevents that transactional market from operating.  There will be other technological solutions that trim the fat, but let the benefits of those solutions be the reason that people move some transactions off the main chain. Don't force them out.

Ignoring for a moment the bass-ackwards and nonsensical assertion that failing to relaxing the transaction rate so that it can come under strain 'prevents the transcriptional market from operating'...

Every system has operational parameters.  The 1MB block size is not an 'artificial cap' any more than a 32-bit integer in a compiler is.  It is a design decision which makes a system work in a certain way.  The 1MB block size like any other such parameter has both pros and cons.  The 21x10^6 money supply is another such parameter and it likewise has certain pros and certain cons depending on one's taste.

Like I said in the snipped, I'm more than happy to see the blockchain forked and 'let the market decide.'

There is a reason why the artificial cap exists and that is because the "free market" as you so describes it does not account of the security of the system. To quote:

The dynamic block size limit should not mean the block size go one way up only. The block size soft limit can be 2-3 times of the median of last 10,000 blocks. This limit can be breached to allow more transactions, but miner will get penalty of fees if they allow the block size to be over. That is similar to Monero (coin)

BIP 1xx is leading over BIP 101!!! That's incredible ::)

p.s. ah I know those sock-puppet theories... every BIP backer have them.

What's wrong if mempool is full and Tx volume demands more space in blocks ?

The reason why it seems ugly is because it involves kicking the metaphorical can into the upper atmosphere, not simply kicking it out of sight.

BIP101 is the most aggressive expansion schedule (well, except for the previous revision of BIP101 that advocated 20 MB + 2 yearly doublings). Not my definition of kicking the can, you need to be able to find the can when it's the right time to pick it up again....

I think 1MB is good. Keeps the cup-of-coffee-buyers and third-world-small-bag-of-rice-purchaser off the blockchain.

Earlier in draft (before becoming a BIP) it was 20 MB + 50%/year (125% per two years).

I would happily support a similar proposal with different parameters if the parameters were well-justified and it grew to have more support than BIP101.

One idea: Is it possible to set up (or does there exist) a platform allowing people to bet on the state of technology 20 years from now?  If there were a lot of money in the pot predicting slower growth than BIP101 needs then you could make a strong case for a more conservative proposal.

artificial is a meaningless adjective but a cap is exactly what it is.

Each parameter in a system has a certain meaning based on its function. 
Yes it may have pros and cons, but it is a cap.  That's what it does by its very nature.

I like BIP1xx but don't think we should double or half the blocksize in one go. Maybe consider plus or minus 20% in one go so there is not so much of a sudden change.

That's not going to be difficult, lol, what support


Why not adjust to demand algorithmically at any given time? Trying to predict demand or supply of network resources, decades into the future, is not a sensible approach at all.

If at any stage the blocksize is too much, the fee market is dead, and mining begins to looks unviable without an effective subsidy. Another blocksize change fork (+ debate)? Great.

If at any stage the blocksize is too little, the fee market could becomes so expensive that everyday transactions are priced out. Another blocksize change fork (+ debate)? Great.

If the average blocksize tracks the BIP101 increase schedule very closely, everything will be OK. How likely is this outcome!



I don't support any of the other static limits for the same broad reasons, it's just that under BIP101, "too big for viable mining" is eminently more likely than under any other proposal. It just cannot be portrayed as the "conservative" solution, it's radical, and in completely the wrong way.

With this kind of approach, bitcoin will be doomed. The economy wouldn't be able to decide which is which. You can't go your 'merry way' if you choose between the three different bitcoins because it will only confuse those who are in business and those who uses the coins. This is not your common trial-and-error math problem that you will first try out different methods before coming up with the best result. $3 billion dollars is at stake here, you can just play with that by forking it in three ways.

Never is a strong word, so let's not use it. As it currently stands, an agreement is a unlikely scenario (yet). However, I would not agree that such a fork is the right way to proceed. Requiring 75% means that they are going to cause a split. A split that will damage both Bitcoin Core and XT. One of the main reasons for which I do not support XT (aside from Hearn) is this. If they required 95% to fork, that would be a different and safer scenario.

Let's just hope that the two planned workshops actually yield with a compromise and that we can move forward afterwards.

I'd very much prefer to determine an appropriate block size limit algorithmically.  Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way of doing this.  There do exist several dynamic limit proposals but none of them do the work of tracking technological progress.


Block subsidies are not necessary to make mining viable.  Even with no subsidy and no limits, transactions would be processed.  It is true that this situation could well lead to extremely low difficulty but this is a different matter.  It is far from clear that this calamity can only be solved by a blocksize limit or that such an approach would even work.

The real problem to an overestimation is that full nodes could well become progressively more expensive to maintain.  This would reduce the number of nodes (including mining nodes) and drive us towards centralisation.  This would require intervention and is a major strike against the proposal.  Fortunately, the growth rate of the BIP101 is rather conservative (not compared to other proposals, but compared with projections of technological growth).


If the blocksize limit is far below what humanity is capable of accommodating with a highly decentralised network then yes, we'd be in a situation similar to the one we have today (hopefully without the node crashing concerns).  This problem applies to all of the proposals.


It's not the conservative solution, it's a solution which follows a conservative estimate of future technological growth.

I also cannot think of a way, but tracking technological progress is not a separate issue; it is the issue. It's a case of coming up with the right metrics convolved in the right algorithm. And it is not an easy problem to solve. We will have to see what can be conceived, the issue is only being more widely discussed as of only a few weeks ago, previously confined to the developers who are directly involved


I am aware, and under such circumstances, it is highly important that users transacting on the network are paying commensurately for the resources they consume on it.



I think so, but your conclusion does not necessarily follow that proposition.



Even the previous Coinwallet attack didn't quite manage that, but it's possible the one that's currently building up could do so. It is very disappointing that they are carrying out their threat. Hopefully the mempool resizing pull will get ok'ed and we'll get it in 0.11.1 during this month.



Not everyone shares that view, it should not be presented as unimpeachable. Estimate is an estimate.

FWIW, I'm surprised and delighted to see you (specifically) putting some genuine thought into these things.  I'd not really expected it from some of your earlier writings.  Anyway...

I believe that my 'never' terminology still stands.  There is just to much diversity and the philosophical poles are to far apart.  One of the main tools an attacker can use is to divide their enemy.  With fundamentally different ideas about an end-state for Bitcoin it makes such an attack against distributed crypto-currencies in this manner very easy.  Indeed, one might not need to provoke it at all as the phenomenon is likely to occur spontaneously.

I would also note that a 'unified and harmonized' Bitcoin has the dis-advantage of being a single-point-of-failure.  Several somewhat autonomous forks each with a different focus lessens this weakness.  Even a Bitcoin which looked a lot like today's e-mail and had a lot of centralization and black/white-listing has some advantages over most other financial instruments.  Specifically, no 'counter-party risk' (by virtue of key control.)  I fight hard against Mike and Gavin because I don't want to see that as the future of Bitcoin, but it really is a viable strategy to enlist the google-class players to be on Bitcoin's side (with the hope of monopolizing it) because they have political sway.  This strategy is a distant second behind working on a defensible 'subordinate chains proxy' strategy (which is what I see Blockstream doing) but I see value in having both strategies in gestation.  Forking could achieve this.

It is equally valid to argue that the $3B market cap is a good reason not to put all of one's eggs in one basket.  Even if things were a zero-sum game (which I seriously doubt) then there is plenty of value to get several different basic strategies off to a running start.

You seem to think that the $3B will collapse to nothing if there is a fork.  I think it more likely that it will expand to a greater number as people have greater confidence that the fork they choose is on the right path.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, and as I say, there is not plenty of slop by virtue of the $3B.  That was not the case back in 2011 when I got interested.

Good news here. You may now change BIP 1xx to BIP 106. It has been formally accepted in Bitcoin's Github repo for BIPs, i.e. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

So, there are three proper BIP right now on Bitcoin's Github repo.

BIP 101: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki
BIP 105: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0105.mediawiki
BIP 106: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0106.mediawiki

Does not BIP 100 or 103 requires to follow proper BIP process ?

People were always talking about this, dont know why it was never proposed earlier as a BIP. But its very difficult now for any BIP proposal to get accepted regardless of if majority want it because miners will never vote for anything other than BIP 100 now its been suggested.

Unless you take a different approach and fork based on 90% or so of node majority rather than using hash majority, but you wouldn't want to do that without first confirming there was already a very strong consensus within the economy for the BIP.

I certainly hope it's not too late, but fear you might be right.  I feel out of all the proposals, BIP100 is by far my least preferable, unless it's altered to add an algorithmic element.  Give me a simple piece of code over a central entity dictating monetary policy any day.  There's still a chance, but we need to get some momentum built up behind this proposal if there's any possibility of BIP106 being chosen.  Hopefully it'll be discussed at the scaling conference.

Have you considered the block extension proposal?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39kqzs/how_about_a_softfork_optin_blocksize_increase/?sort=confidence

It might not be the most simple or easy to implement but certain from my point of view the one that satisfies most both sides, in effect creating a solution that respects consensus that there is no consensus.  ;)

Well I'm certainly not dismissing any of them as potential solutions.  Unlike some, I'm actually capable of looking at a proposal and thinking "It's not quite there in its present form, but if we modify this and a few bits here and there, then it might work".  Why can't you do that?  Why do you have to attack, dismiss, ridicule and torpedo every single proposal that alters an arbitrary 1mb cap?  I'm pretty sure in our little exchange here that ran on for several pages (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12346547#msg12346547), there was a distinct theme of "you really need to compromise and work with the rest of the community to find something we can all agree on, rather than continuing to draw a line in the sand".  But I can't help but notice the block extension proposal still retains a 1MB cap and an inevitable asset-class elitist chain that only benefits a small minority.  I'm still not seeing a hint of compromise from you and I've still yet to hear your master plan of how you're going to prevent BIP100 when you've painted yourself into a corner and no one is any closer to agreeing with you.

You've already admitted (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12347389#msg12347389) that some miners will obviously want larger blocks, so BIP100 is going to be very tempting for them.  Again, I don't think BIP100 is the ideal solution as I would much prefer an algorithmic change based on demand.  But given the choice between an exclusive blockchain and an inclusive blockchain, I will always side with the inclusive one.  If you continue to reject any increase in blocksize until blocks are constantly overflowing into the mempool, then I will accept BIP100, because it's still infinitely more preferable than your asset class, elitist, one-percenter safe haven belief.

The problem you have, is that for all your talk of aligned incentives and claiming you understand them, the incentives for an inclusive blockchain will always outweigh the incentives of an exclusive blockchain.  The numbers are simply against you.

I am DONE taking you seriously. Understand that inconsiderate, irresponsible and disingenuous proposals will continue to be "attacked, dismissed, ridiculed and torpedoed". I am not one to wear the pink glasses of "oh well it might be better than nothing".

I have offered you a compromise: you get whatever size block you like while we keep our 1MB chain WITHOUT the need for a hard fork. Of course you wouldn't understand it since it is painfully obvious you haven't actually "looked at the proposal".

If you can't understand that a 1MB chain favors the entire network and not only "a small minority" you are either being intentionally dishonest or outright ignorant. Let me spell it out for you: a 1MB block size guarantees access to the most open, private and secure chain.

Open: every users has an ability to trivially run a node and store their wealth on that chain

Private: relying on SPV means relying on a third-party to relay your transactions, there are considerable privacy risks.

Secure: an ultra conservative block size allows the number of independent nodes in the system to grow infinitely, considerably increasing the strength and decentralization of the network. it enables possibilities like the commoditization of hardware such as the existing Bitnodes (https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/hardware/)

Now your obvious complain is that not everyone will get to transact on this chain since it might be considerably pricier. If we're being honest, that's not a problem. A strong & decentralized protocol layer will work as a guarantee that third-parties involved in superficial layers are being kept honest provided that their actions can be checked against the one absolute truth layer. That's the role you should expect Bitcoin to play in the future:


As for you frankly tiresome and quite useless BIP100 blatter let me insist it will never be part of Bitcoin. The whole idea of having miners vote is broken beyond repair. I don't care if 100% of the miners get behind it the users will never let it happen since most of us know better than to leave them in control.

You are a danger to Bitcoin and your servility appals me. You are like an animal reacting only to fear without consideration for the impacts of your action.

A "one-percenter blockchain" is the only rational vision for Bitcoin, whether you like it or not. Fortunately for the first time ever you will be allowed a seat at their table. It will cost you some if you wanna trade with them but you will have other options to enjoy the security of your wealth.

So you freely admit your ultimate goal is to make it as easy as possible for everyone to run a full node to support a chain they can't afford to transact on?  Yeah, I guess I'll have to admit I don't understand how that benefits everyone.  Because it doesn't benefit everyone, it benefits whoever has the most coins.  Sure, let's disrupt the fiat monetary system, where everyone supports the system to provide tremendous benefit to a small, wealthy minority, with Bitcoin, where everyone supports the system to provide tremendous benefit to a small, wealthy minority?  Oh wait, that's the same outcome, why are we bothering to disrupt it at all? 

You're done taking ME seriously?   ;D

It's simply not going to play out like that.  There are too many factors you don't have control over to dictate that particular direction.  Many of the people who are involved with bitcoin right now don't run a full node due to resource constraints, so it's not like new users are going to start running full nodes en-masse just so that they can be shunted off to less secure chains whenever they want to transact.  The pressure will never go away for a larger blocksize and there's nothing you can do to prevent it happening.  Keep dreaming.

 

Are you under the impression that Bitcoin is some sort of wealth redistribution scheme  ???

Running full nodes benefits everyone because it is the only way to make sure any party you are involved with in a transaction respect the rules of the game. If the governance of the system is concentrated in a few datacenters all over the world it becomes trivial to screw with the protocol and rewrite the books.  

True it benefits directly mostly those who are rich yes since they can chose to transact directly on the Bitcoin blockchain without thinking twice about the price of doing so. Indeed, transactions fees are not a problem for a certain percentage  ;) of the world's riches. These select fews are most interested in the censorship-free aspects of Bitcoin. Multi-billion dollars international bank settlements. Aggregated remittances worth millions of dollars. Darkmarket actors supporting trillion dollar economy. These entities have NEVER been deterred by bank fees, hell they are used to BRIBE everyone around. That's much more expensive than any number Bitcoin fees ever promise to be.

These benefits are, by the way, already available to the highest bidders under the current fiat economy. What Bitcoin stands to do, is not necessarily make it easier for them, although it will, but to descend this ability down to the most common man, should he care enough to pay for it. If he can't then yes he is likely be "shunted-off" to less secure options but ones that will be binded to a digital contract so as to respect the rules of consensus enforced by Bitcoin's sovereignty. Now whether or not he transacts with the Bitcoin blockchain does not mean he can't park his wealth there.

The block increase pressure you speak of will disintegrate as soon as these additional layers can be made available. One should not forget the pace of development we have witnessed in the past 2 years. I fully expect payment channels of different sort to be fully integrated to Bitcoin within the next two.

That is how Bitcoin will scale. This is what I refer to when speaking of building an economy, and not a worthless, centralized payment system.

This should absolutely liberate the Bitcoin chain from any pressure to grow anymore or at least do so while staying in bound with the most conservative hardware and network development. Again, doing so will allow us to commoditize access to full nodes and make them trivial to run. Under this design the smallest Bitcoin users have the power to interfere if someone attempts to change the rules for the worst. That is a much more important liberty than the one to freely transact on any arbitrary chain. 

The powerful idea behind this is that while not everyone will have the money or care to make direct interaction with the Bitcoin blockchain, they will all benefit by the trust it will shine on its economy.

Wow.  That's a pretty dramatic change of tone from your prior post.  It's almost as though I described your views in a way that would sound unappealing to a large number of people and you suddenly felt the need to adopt a more diplomatic approach to compensate.  I doubt anyone's going to buy it, though.


Realised I better quote that bit for posterity in case you feel the need to edit it out, like when you admitted miners want larger blocks.  Looking forward to the fork.  It's going to be glorious.

They don't need to, the "one-percenter" will. The herd, they follow.

Yes, I can't wait for you to get all excited over a 1 mb increase, if so.  :D

But frankly, have a look at Adam's proposal again and tell me this is not what we are both looking for.

Well, I'm actually sorry to hear that. I might have come off a little harsh in some cases in regards to this debate (anti-XT and such), however I always try to put genuine thought in discussions around here (but some people make this very hard at times).

Well I do not like the thought of Mike and Gavin either, I do however understand your view on the matter. So you strongly believe that an agreement can't be made between Core and XT? What about an agreement between only the Core developers and the 'industry'? We're kind of stuck at the moment, but let's hope that that changes in the future.
A compromise between BIP100 and BIP105 would be nice.