Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin => Bitcoin Discussion => Topic started by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 02:51:19 PM



Title: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 02:51:19 PM
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/

Quote
I don't think 1MB is magic; it always exists relative to widely-deployed
technology, sociology, and economics. But these factors aren't a simple
function; the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there
is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to
gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the
hard limit with proper controls

This is Greg Maxwell talking about the blocksize increase.

He advocates raising the limit only if there is a "standing backlog"
(and apparently also only if some "indicators say we're losing decentralization")

Not only does that sound dangerous for adoption, but its probably
not as easy as he makes it sound (he posted that in May),
as we're seeing first hand how challenging hard fork consensus is.  

Also, Mike Hearn has suggested it could cause technical problems (nodes crashing).

Greg's other concern seems to be about fees.

While that's important, I don't think it should be a major consideration this early
when coinbase subsidies will likely be greater than fees for
at least a decade, and so not a reason to forestall an increase.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 02:54:47 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: CounterEntropy on August 31, 2015, 03:02:33 PM
Greg's other concern seems to be about fees.

While that's important, I don't think it should be a major consideration this early
when coinbase subsidies will likely be greater than fees for
at least a decade, and so not a reason to forestall an increase.
Fees concern is well addressed in BIP 1xx (https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki). Greg is simply doing whatever it takes to honor the 21m he has taken for BlockStream, i.e. choking the network, so that BlockStream can bloom.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Mickeyb on August 31, 2015, 03:13:56 PM
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/

Quote
I don't think 1MB is magic; it always exists relative to widely-deployed
technology, sociology, and economics. But these factors aren't a simple
function; the procedure I'd prefer would be something like this: if there
is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to
gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the
hard limit with proper controls

This is Greg Maxwell talking about the blocksize increase.

He advocates raising the limit only if there is a "standing backlog"

Not only does that sound dangerous for adoption, but its probably
not as easy as he makes it sound (he posted that in May),
as we're seeing first hand how challenging hard fork consensus is. 

Also, Mike Hearn has suggested it could cause technical problems (nodes crashing).

Greg's other concern seems to be about fees.

While that's important, I don't think it should be a major consideration this early
when coinbase subsidies will likely be greater than fees for
at least a decade, and so not a reason to forestall an increase.


I think this approach is wrong!

One of the last interviews I saw with Andreas Antonopoulos, they asked him about the block size debate and his opinion. He said that he believes in consensus, but that he leans toward the block size increase because of 1 simple thing.

He said that we all hope for mass adoption. Well imagine if there was somebody prominent in China, that advertised Bitcoin and whole nation would see this in TV. Imagine if we would get an influx of 10 million new users over a very short period of time, Bitcoin network would become paralyzed.

I completely agree with him. How can all these devs, Greg Maxwell included, wish for a mass adoption, and not be afraid of scenario like this.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 03:18:58 PM
He said that we all hope for mass adoption. Well imagine if there was somebody prominent in China, that advertised Bitcoin and whole nation would see this in TV. Imagine if we would get an influx of 10 million new users over a very short period of time, Bitcoin network would become paralyzed.

Killer app, monetary crisis, mass marketeer, successful remittance company, bull market kickoff....

Just to add to your example.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: alani123 on August 31, 2015, 03:20:01 PM
What would you define standing backlog as? We've already seen backlogs forming during the stress tests. There were some difficulties with low fee transaction speeds but overall it was nothing close to 'jeopardizing' bitcoin. In theory, a backlog could start forming at any given time, but right now most blocks aren't even filled.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: LiteCoinGuy on August 31, 2015, 03:51:38 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.

yep, but it is good for blockstreams business  :)


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 31, 2015, 04:24:52 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.

yep, but it is good for blockstreams business  :)

I've seen people from Blockstream argue that bigger blocks would be good for them. Since you're obviously paying close attention to this debate, I'm sure you're familiar with those arguments.

I see a lot of this silly fingerpointing at Blockstream. It sometimes makes me inclined to respond with:

You know, you guys are trying to hand over the Benevolent Dictator role to someone with ties to Google, right? I mean -- Google -- you've heard of them, right? You talk about "21 million dollars" at Blockstream. You realize how tiny that is compared to Google. And
Google is essentially an arm of the NSA
and the corresponding spy agencies in other countries. You know that, right? Are you guys fucking stupid, or what?

Now, I don't respond that way, because I don't see any evidence that Mike Hearn's time at Google is nefarious -- just as there's no evidence that Blockstream is trying to "cripple" Bitcoin. But you guy's will go on saying it. And I'll go on not accusing Mike Hearn of being a Google NSA MI6 mole. But I have to say, you guys make it really difficult to like you. I am honestly starting to think that some of you are just bad people. Bad dishonest people.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 04:29:12 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.

yep, but it is good for blockstreams business  :)

I've seen people from Blockstream argue that bigger blocks would be good for them. Since you're obviously paying close attention to this debate, I'm sure you're familiar with those arguments.

I see a lot of this silly fingerpointing at Blockstream. It sometimes makes me inclined to respond with:

You know, you guys are trying to hand over the Benevolent Dictator role to someone with ties to Google, right? I mean -- Google -- you've heard of them, right? You talk about "21 million dollars" at Blockstream. You realize how tiny that is compared to Google. And
Google is essentially an arm of the NSA
and the corresponding spy agencies in other countries. You know that, right? Are you guys fucking stupid, or what?

Now, I don't respond that way, because I don't see any evidence that Mike Hearn's time at Google is nefarious -- just as there's no evidence that Blockstream is trying to "cripple" Bitcoin. But you guy's will go on saying it. And I'll go on not accusing Mike Hearn of being a Google NSA MI6 mole. But I have to say, you guys make it really difficult to like you. I am honestly starting to think that some of you are just bad people. Bad dishonest people.

It doesn't change anything to the fact that most Core developers being employed by Blockstream are in a questionable conflict of interest.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Westin Landon Cox on August 31, 2015, 04:35:13 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.

yep, but it is good for blockstreams business  :)

I've seen people from Blockstream argue that bigger blocks would be good for them. Since you're obviously paying close attention to this debate, I'm sure you're familiar with those arguments.

I see a lot of this silly fingerpointing at Blockstream. It sometimes makes me inclined to respond with:

You know, you guys are trying to hand over the Benevolent Dictator role to someone with ties to Google, right? I mean -- Google -- you've heard of them, right? You talk about "21 million dollars" at Blockstream. You realize how tiny that is compared to Google. And
Google is essentially an arm of the NSA
and the corresponding spy agencies in other countries. You know that, right? Are you guys fucking stupid, or what?

Now, I don't respond that way, because I don't see any evidence that Mike Hearn's time at Google is nefarious -- just as there's no evidence that Blockstream is trying to "cripple" Bitcoin. But you guy's will go on saying it. And I'll go on not accusing Mike Hearn of being a Google NSA MI6 mole. But I have to say, you guys make it really difficult to like you. I am honestly starting to think that some of you are just bad people. Bad dishonest people.

It doesn't change anything to the fact that most Core developers being employed by Blockstream are in a questionable conflict of interest.

You're only demonstrating that you're incapable of a basic level of understanding.

1. Those Core devs had open concerns about raising the block size limit before Blockstream. So their position clearly isn't a consequence of Blockstream's existence.

2. Both sidechains and the lightning network (and LN did not come from Blockstream) would benefit from bigger blocks, so if anything the supposed "conflict of interest" should have caused them to change their opinion.

Now, do you understand those two very basic points or should I type them slower?



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 04:39:47 PM
You're only demonstrating that you're incapable of a basic level of understanding.

1. Those Core devs had open concerns about raising the block size limit before Blockstream. So their position clearly isn't a consequence of Blockstream's existence.

2. Both sidechains and the lightning network (and LN did not come from Blockstream) would benefit from bigger blocks, so if anything the supposed "conflict of interest" should have caused them to change their opinion.

Now, do you understand those two very basic points or should I type them slower?



Maybe you are right but their inaction speaks louder than any argument they could make at the moment. It's up to them to prove they don't have ill intention even if they are in such position. So far so good they have done nothing to prove it.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 04:45:03 PM
You're only demonstrating that you're incapable of a basic level of understanding.

1. Those Core devs had open concerns about raising the block size limit before Blockstream. So their position clearly isn't a consequence of Blockstream's existence.

2. Both sidechains and the lightning network (and LN did not come from Blockstream) would benefit from bigger blocks, so if anything the supposed "conflict of interest" should have caused them to change their opinion.

Now, do you understand those two very basic points or should I type them slower?



Maybe you are right but their inaction speaks louder than any argument they could make at the moment. It's up to them to prove they don't have ill intention even if they are in such position. So far so good they have done nothing to prove it.

Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?

What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?

You're a clown.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 04:46:21 PM
Regardless of the conflict of interest, just looking at Greg's arguments at face value,
they don't strike me as compelling.



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 04:53:00 PM
Regardless of the conflict of interest, just looking at Greg's arguments at face value,
they don't strike me as compelling.



Can you explain the backlog comment? It's context and what it entails?

You're quoting a couple of lines out of a dozen paragraphs and expect us to take and judge these comments at face value?



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 04:54:47 PM
Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?


The block size limit.


What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?


You must be kidding right? Will you trust anybody on the street with your money under the presumption of innocence? Only a clown would.



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 05:00:18 PM
Regardless of the conflict of interest, just looking at Greg's arguments at face value,
they don't strike me as compelling.



Can you explain the backlog comment? It's context and what it entails?

You're quoting a couple of lines out of a dozen paragraphs and expect us to take and judge these comments at face value?



I think you are trolling and understand perfectly well what a "backlog" of transactions is.

So i'll troll right back at you:  If you're incapable of reading Greg's original post and
making intelligent contributions, then please leave the conversation to the adults.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 05:03:30 PM
Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?


The block size limit.


What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?


You must be kidding right? Will you trust anybody on the street with your money under the presumption of innocence? Only a clown would.

Of course you are not actually addressing any of my questions.

How do you describe his inaction? Can you provide a detailed outlook of his work in the last 3 months? Have you been reading bitcoin-wizards, the dev list or the entirety of his posts on reddit?

http://i.imgur.com/nOJONJ1.png

Everyone sees through you. You're a sham


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 05:08:23 PM
Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?


The block size limit.


What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?


You must be kidding right? Will you trust anybody on the street with your money under the presumption of innocence? Only a clown would.

Of course you are not actually addressing any of my questions.

How do you describe his inaction? Can you provide a detailed outlook of his work in the last 3 months? Have you been reading bitcoin-wizards, the dev list or the entirety of his posts on reddit?

http://i.imgur.com/nOJONJ1.png

Everyone sees through you. You're a sham

Talk is cheap. Blocks are still at 1 mb.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 05:14:47 PM
Their inaction? Inaction toward what exactly?


The block size limit.


What happened to presumption of innocence? How do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intentions?!?


You must be kidding right? Will you trust anybody on the street with your money under the presumption of innocence? Only a clown would.

Of course you are not actually addressing any of my questions.

How do you describe his inaction? Can you provide a detailed outlook of his work in the last 3 months? Have you been reading bitcoin-wizards, the dev list or the entirety of his posts on reddit?

http://i.imgur.com/nOJONJ1.png

Everyone sees through you. You're a sham

Talk is cheap. Blocks are still at 1 mb.

400kb actually  :D


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Holliday on August 31, 2015, 05:31:24 PM
Greg has always made a lot of sense to me. He seems to understand the inner workings of Bitcoin far better than most.

as we're seeing first hand how challenging hard fork consensus is.

It's challenging because many of us believe there is no urgency. Instead of some kludgy hack, we would prefer something which promotes both a healthy fee market and decentralization. If I was to err, I would err on the side of decentralization.

Also, Mike Hearn has suggested it could cause technical problems (nodes crashing).

Have you taken the time to read some of the other things Heam has said? There are some real gems in there. Here are two of my favorites regarding fees and block size.

In the absence of a block size cap miners can be supported using network assurance contracts.

Totally agree that we want fees to be zero for as long as possible (or forever).

So... we will secure the network with "network assurance contracts". We'll does anyone have an example of a functioning "network assurance contract" or should we just go along with Heam and hope for the best? I guess people simply paying fees for their transactions is a ridiculous idea. Let's not K.I.S.S., let's make it far more complicated than it needs to be! Complication certainly helps with decentralization, right?

I think most "bitcoiners" have been spoiled by the early high block subsidy days of free to near free transactions. I know I've sung the praises of low cost transactions in the past. Yet, Bitcoin is censorship-proof money. How much are you willing to pay for that? I'm personally willing to pay upwards of $100 per transaction and wait a week or more for it to clear simply because I know that it can't be stopped by an authority or middleman. Of course, I don't think using censorship-proof money in order to buy my morning coffee is the best tool for the job. It's like using a chainsaw to cut down a dandelion. I'm perfectly happy with centralized solutions for daily spending. What we need is the Bitcoin system to function as censorship-proof money when we actually need censorship-proof money!

A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.

If, in the future, there is a technological way to achieve censorship-proof money that scales like VISA, I'm all for it. I personally don't think that massive blocks are the correct answer at this time. If we need to make slight adjustments to the maximum block size to buy us some time, so be it.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 05:36:40 PM
Holliday,

I hear what you are saying about urgency. 
Yes, consensus may be easier when the
situation is more dire.  It's also easier to
motivate oneself to finally see the dentist
when one's teeth are falling out.  Waiting
till there is "a standing backlog" seems to
be as far extreme as you can get. 

As far as Mike Hearn, I do not dispute
that he has said questionable things.
Still, he brings up a point that overloading
the nodes may be problematic.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 05:48:12 PM
A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.


Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?
One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion. Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 05:59:05 PM
A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.


Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?
One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion. Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.

Paying the market price for a scarce unit is not censorship. You wanna make it free we get it but that's just not possible. "Trade offs"

Maybe we stop wasting everyone's time and you recognize increasing the block size is not how Bitcoin is going to scale.

Behaving like an imbecile arguing to ignorance has certain limits. You are crossing them.

Bitcoin is about censorship free money. For everything else there's Mastercard.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: marky89 on August 31, 2015, 06:02:03 PM
A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.


Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?
One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion. Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.

Well, how would you define it? For me, bitcoin's value is in being a decentralized, transferable token in limited supply. Essential to maintaining that definition is robust network security (and by proxy, a strong emphasis on consensus).

Do you believe that at no point, exponential scaling might result in serious threats to a) decentralization, and b) network security? Keep in mind that bitcoin has never scaled beyond a 1MB block limit (of course, on average it is nowhere near reaching this limit to begin with), and BIP 101 suggests scaling 8000x.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 06:13:21 PM
A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.


Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?
One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion. Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.

Well, how would you define it? For me, bitcoin's value is in being a decentralized, transferable token in limited supply. Essential to maintaining that definition is robust network security (and by proxy, a strong emphasis on consensus).

Do you believe that at no point, exponential scaling might result in serious threats to a) decentralization, and b) network security? Keep in mind that bitcoin has never scaled beyond a 1MB block limit (of course, on average it is nowhere near reaching this limit to begin with), and BIP 101 suggests scaling 8000x.

You can also add permisionless programmable money in your value set.

Of course infinite exponential growth is unrealistic, dangerous but also unneeded. We only need exponential growth during the adoption phase then stabilization.  I think the risks of centralization is overblown. There is an incentive by market participants (individuals and businesses) to run full nodes for a fairly cheap price. To give the market a predictable growth also gives it the opportunity to come up with scaling solutions as running full nodes. https://bitseed.org/ is a good example of that. I’m all in favor to give the market the opportunity to solves every technical problems that will arise with scalability. Saying it is impossible is as bold as saying the byzantine generals problem was impossible to solve or the internet was impossible to scale.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Holliday on August 31, 2015, 06:13:56 PM
Waiting till there is "a standing backlog" seems to be as far extreme as you can get. 

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing extreme about a standing backlog of no-fee-paid or extremely-low-fee-paid transactions. That seems pretty normal actually. You get what you pay for. If you want to ride the free roller coaster, you may have to stand in line waiting for your turn.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Holliday on August 31, 2015, 06:26:13 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion.

People are certainly liberal with the use of the word "censorship" these days. If you want to argue that market forces are censorship, perhaps you should start another thread.

Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.

Maybe we are getting to the crux of the divide. Bitcoin is different things for different people. So it's expected that they would argue for changes that enhance a particular property.

I look at it like this. What does Bitcoin allow me to do that nothing else on the planet allows me to do. Those properties are what I consider Bitcoin's real strengths.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 06:26:18 PM
Waiting till there is "a standing backlog" seems to be as far extreme as you can get. 

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing extreme about a standing backlog of no-fee-paid or extremely-low-fee-paid transactions. That seems pretty normal actually. You get what you pay for. If you want to ride the free roller coaster, you may have to stand in line waiting for your turn.

Ok, but what if there's a backlog of normal fee transactions?  Waiting till there's a backlog of those sounds reasonable to you?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Mickeyb on August 31, 2015, 06:42:36 PM
He said that we all hope for mass adoption. Well imagine if there was somebody prominent in China, that advertised Bitcoin and whole nation would see this in TV. Imagine if we would get an influx of 10 million new users over a very short period of time, Bitcoin network would become paralyzed.

Killer app, monetary crisis, mass marketeer, successful remittance company, bull market kickoff....

Just to add to your example.

Well exactly this, there are many things that could happen and trigger even a much higher adoption, if not a mass adoption. We never know what tomorrow brings and I would rather be ready for this very possible increase, than caught off guard and have a Bitcoin network paralysed.

And also to add, can we all imagine, what kind of message would this paralysis send to all of the newcomers!


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 07:13:53 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.

Maybe we are getting to the crux of the divide. Bitcoin is different things for different people. So it's expected that they would argue for changes that enhance a particular property.

I look at it like this. What does Bitcoin allow me to do that nothing else on the planet allows me to do. Those properties are what I consider Bitcoin's real strengths.


Bitcoin is indeed a lot of thing for a lot of people and should stay as such because it is what makes its strength but I fail to see why scaling it would/should change any of this.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 08:03:20 PM
A lot of people on this forum act like there are no trade-offs in life. Can we have censorship-proof money that scales like VISA? Probably not. So mainstreamers better be careful what they ask for.


Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?
One can also argue than having to pay 100$ fee just to send a transaction is a form of censorship and exclusion. Anyhow, bitcoin is much more than just censorship-free money.

Well, how would you define it? For me, bitcoin's value is in being a decentralized, transferable token in limited supply. Essential to maintaining that definition is robust network security (and by proxy, a strong emphasis on consensus).

Do you believe that at no point, exponential scaling might result in serious threats to a) decentralization, and b) network security? Keep in mind that bitcoin has never scaled beyond a 1MB block limit (of course, on average it is nowhere near reaching this limit to begin with), and BIP 101 suggests scaling 8000x.

I'm sure there will be challenges but no one has presented a reason they couldn't be overcome.  We aren't there yet.

While Bip 101 may or may not be the best solution, I think the "lets wait till we have a backlog and then deal with it" approach can't be good.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 08:15:04 PM
We have at least 2 more years before the block size limit actually starts mattering on a significant scale:

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1

The moving average for this years block size has been about 0.4 - 0.44 MBs.

So Gavin couldn't negotiate with the core devs any longer and had to get his coin out ASAP because... why?

The fact that he is backed by a throng of finance industry CEOs diminishes merit from his arguments. We don't care what the already-rich think. Bitcoin isn't for them.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:22:16 PM
We have at least 2 more years before the block size limit actually starts mattering on a significant scale:

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1

The moving average for this years block size has been about 0.4 - 0.44 MBs.

So Gavin couldn't negotiate with the core devs any longer and had to get his coin out ASAP because... why?

The fact that he is backed by a throng of finance industry CEOs diminishes merit from his arguments. We don't care what the already-rich think. Bitcoin isn't for them.

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 08:25:06 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:28:18 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ? Ignoring the needs of market participants is the right thing to do?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 08:33:21 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.


http://www.thebadchemicals.com/comics/2010-10-18-preemptive-strike.jpg


maxwell makes perfect sense. not like you qualify to reassess his judgement anyway.

but plz, go on to your infinite bloatchain... the sooner the better :P


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:36:00 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.


[img]-snip-[img]


maxwell makes perfect sense.

anyway, go on to your infinite bloatchain... the sooner the better :P

Another post with no substance?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 08:38:24 PM

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ? Ignoring the needs of market participants is the right thing to do?

I really could care less what they do. Most of them will fail and be gone in a couple of years, anyway.

Bitcoin already works with or without them.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:39:47 PM

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ? Ignoring the needs of market participants is the right thing to do?

I really could care less what they do. Most of them will fail and be gone in a couple of years, anyway.

Bitcoin already works with or without them.

So I guess it's ok to ignore them for your selfish goal?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 08:40:55 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ?

These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors.

Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus.

This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence.



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 08:41:23 PM
Being proactive > being reactive IMO.

Waiting for people's transactions being jeopardize before taking action is pretty irresponsible.


http://[img]http://www-snip


maxwell makes perfect sense.

anyway, go on to your infinite bloatchain... the sooner the better :P

Another post with no substance?


hey dont delete my pic, in it lies all the substance you'd ever make anyway.

http://www.thebadchemicals.com/comics/2010-10-18-preemptive-strike.jpg


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:42:52 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ?

These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors.

Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus.

This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence.



Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 08:45:00 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ?

These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors.

Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus.

This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence.



Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

yea, our money. not them parasites VCs straight from the printers BS money.

decentralized consensus: not gonna happen. :D



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:47:35 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ?

These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors.

Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus.

This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence.



Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

yea, our money. not them parasites VCs straight from the printers BS money.

decentralized consensus: not gonna happen. :D

You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money. 


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 08:48:09 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ?

These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors.

Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus.

This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence.



Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

yea, our money. not them parasites VCs straight from the printers BS money.

decentralized consensus: not gonna happen. :D

You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.

lol never..

http://38.media.tumblr.com/c8029c921f16059c58c0cf3d908cfda0/tumblr_mfm7y05pz81qe27tzo1_500.gif


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 08:48:35 PM

Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

Because money talks far too much is the reason why bitcoin has any value today.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:51:48 PM

Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

Because money talks far too much is the reason why bitcoin has any value today.

Money will always talk because of human nature, bitcoin will be no different in this aspect. Bitcoin has value today because it is sound money.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 08:54:35 PM

Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

Because money talks far too much is the reason why bitcoin has any value today.

Money will always talk because of human nature, bitcoin will be no different in this aspect. Bitcoin has value today because it is sound money.

bitcoin has value today because no business, dev or whatever government has its hands on it. and they never will.
you're too late, train is gone.

Bitcoin is ours. 8)





Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 08:55:48 PM

Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

Because money talks far too much is the reason why bitcoin has any value today.

Money will always talk because of human nature, bitcoin will be no different in this aspect. Bitcoin has value today because it is sound money.

Wrong. Bitcoin has value today because useless, greed-driven middlemen haven't figured out a way to corrupt it and get their cut from it yet.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 08:59:53 PM

Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

Because money talks far too much is the reason why bitcoin has any value today.

Money will always talk because of human nature, bitcoin will be no different in this aspect. Bitcoin has value today because it is sound money.

Wrong. Bitcoin has value today because useless, greed-driven middlemen haven't figured out a way to corrupt it and get their cut from it yet.

I agree but bitcoin can't be corrupted the way fiat as been corrupted. These companies want to make a profit using this sound money and bringing it to the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with that.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 09:01:24 PM

Because big boys are asking so and won't wait any longer for obvious reasons. The limit also limit these companies to mass marketeer their products.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

The right thing to do would be to not cave into their selfish demands.

They clearly have only their own pockets in mind.

Well, bitcoin is money. What do you expect? You expect these companies that have invested millions to run at a loss without making profits forever? You expect them to loose their investment without doing anything because bitcoin doesn't scale ?

These companies were sold by Gavin & Mike the idea that "bitcoin doesn't scale" and that their business will suffer because of it. They are somehow under the impression that current block size impedes their growth and is a danger to the future growth they themselves sold to their investors.

Growth projection is a very tricky thing but if we are to believe the current trend we are still quite below the current limit and should stay so for awhile. There was no reasonable basis for those so-called industry "leaders" to precipitate the issue and stand behind one "solution" when it was clear the model had considerable opposition from various actors in the ecosystem. Especially seeing as the Scaling Bitcoin workshops had shown encouraging signs that a legitimate resolution process was starting to take place that could hopefully reconcile everyone and re-establish consensus.

This is simply a hack job of lobbying by the XT developers to force the issue by pulling strings using their industry influence.



Yup but the cold reality is that at the end of the day, money talks.

yea, our money. not them parasites VCs straight from the printers BS money.

decentralized consensus: not gonna happen. :D

You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money. 

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:04:08 PM
You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money. 

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.

Miners have no choice to follow the market makers unless they want to mine a worthless coin. You are delusional if you think otherwise.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 09:04:40 PM
We have at least 2 more years before the block size limit actually starts mattering on a significant scale:

https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1

The moving average for this years block size has been about 0.4 - 0.44 MBs.

So Gavin couldn't negotiate with the core devs any longer and had to get his coin out ASAP because... why?

The fact that he is backed by a throng of finance industry CEOs diminishes merit from his arguments. We don't care what the already-rich think. Bitcoin isn't for them.

Because a year ago, the  average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 09:05:11 PM


I agree but bitcoin can't be corrupted the way fiat as been corrupted.

Sure it can. If you live in New York state, it has already been corrupted.

These companies want to make a profit using this sound money and bringing it to the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with that.

We don't need them. Nobody does. We need more altruists and evangelists leading the charge -- people who don't lead profit-driven lives. We already have waaaaay too many of those, which is what allows things like the stock market crash of 2008 to happen. Nobody except for you, Mike & Gavin wants them in bitcoin.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 09:05:50 PM
You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money.  

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.

Miners have no choice to follow the market makers unless they want to mine a worthless coin. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Bitcoin holders are the market makers. not the miners, not the companies, not the devs, and certainly not the masses.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 09:06:09 PM

Because a year ago, the  average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.

Okay. The average block size is still less than half of the limit. So why couldn't Gavin and Mike continue to work within the core community again?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:07:02 PM
You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money.  

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.

Miners have no choice to follow the market makers unless they want to mine a worthless coin. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Bitcoin holders are the market makers. not the miners, not the companies, not the devs, and certainly not the masses.

Speculators will go where the market makers are too.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 09:07:44 PM
You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money.  

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.

Miners have no choice to follow the market makers unless they want to mine a worthless coin. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Bitcoin holders are the market makers. not the miners, not the companies, not the devs, and certainly not the masses.

Speculators will go where the market makers are too.

speculators are the market's friggin nervous system!!


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:08:01 PM


I agree but bitcoin can't be corrupted the way fiat as been corrupted.

Sure it can. If you live in New York state, it has already been corrupted.

These companies want to make a profit using this sound money and bringing it to the mainstream. There is nothing wrong with that.

We don't need them. Nobody does. We need more altruists and evangelists leading the charge -- people who don't lead profit-driven lives. We already have waaaaay too many of those, which is what allows things like the stock market crash of 2008 to happen. Nobody except for you, Mike & Gavin wants them in bitcoin.

Bitcoin will never change human nature. I will just bring to area of freedom to escape the fiat system.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:08:32 PM
You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money.  

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.

Miners have no choice to follow the market makers unless they want to mine a worthless coin. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Bitcoin holders are the market makers. not the miners, not the companies, not the devs, and certainly not the masses.

Speculators will go where the market makers are too.


speculators are the market's friggin nervous system!!

And speculators will follow the big money, to make money...


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 09:09:40 PM

Because a year ago, the  average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.

Okay. The average block size is still less than half of the limit. So why couldn't Gavin and Mike continue to work within the core community again?

Because of precisely what I said in the OP.  Greg wants us to literally run out space before doing anything.  He and the other core devs don't want to act.

And Gavin doesn't agree.  Nor does Mike, Jeff, a handful of major companies, and an increasing majority of miners.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 09:12:22 PM

Bitcoin will never change human nature. I will just bring to area of freedom to escape the fiat system.

Human nature is always changing. The planet is far less murderous for the vast majority of society than it was just 200 years ago. To pretend that we are all still apes, driven by base instincts, who would claw each other to death over a pile of food is to ignore the ongoing evolution of human nature.

You want to drag us back in time while technology demands peace, stability and open-mindedness in order to progress. Greed is dumb.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 09:14:30 PM

Bitcoin will never change human nature. I will just bring to area of freedom to escape the fiat system.

Human nature is always changing. The planet is far less murderous for the vast majority of society than it was just 200 years ago. To pretend that we are all still apes, driven by base instincts, who would claw each other to death over a pile of food is to ignore the ongoing evolution of human nature.

You want to drag us back in time while technology demands peace, stability and open-mindedness in order to progress. Greed is dumb.


amen brother!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzxh0leK291qg4blro1_500.gif




Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 09:15:48 PM

Because a year ago, the  average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.

Okay. The average block size is still less than half of the limit. So why couldn't Gavin and Mike continue to work within the core community again?

Because of precisely what I said in the OP.  Greg wants us to literally run out space before doing anything.  He and the other core devs don't want to act.

And Gavin doesn't agree.  Nor does Mike, Jeff, a handful of major companies, and an increasing majority of miners.

I am 90% certain XT will end up being just another altcoin. Have fun supporting it. Hey, I like a lot of altcoins. Nothing wrong with that. But pretending it will replace bitcoin anytime in the next 3 years is fanciful thinking. I've never held an alt where I thought that would be the case. Gavin should have at least had the courtesy to come up with his own name instead of riding bitcoin's coat tails.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 09:22:23 PM

Because a year ago, the  average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.

Okay. The average block size is still less than half of the limit. So why couldn't Gavin and Mike continue to work within the core community again?

Because of precisely what I said in the OP.  Greg wants us to literally run out space before doing anything.  He and the other core devs don't want to act.

And Gavin doesn't agree.  Nor does Mike, Jeff, a handful of major companies, and an increasing majority of miners.

I am 90% certain XT will end up being just another altcoin. Have fun supporting it. Hey, I like a lot of altcoins. Nothing wrong with that. But pretending it will replace bitcoin anytime in the next 3 years is fanciful thinking. I've never held an alt where I thought that would be the case. Gavin should have at least had the courtesy to come up with his own name instead of riding bitcoin's coat tails.

Well I'm 90% sure you're wrong and misinformed. 

You are misinformed.  

XT is an alt client that supports the Bitcoin blockchain and its rules and protocol.

The only difference is it will support bigger blocks IF AND WHEN 75% of the miners agree.
if and when that happens, core will either upgrade to be compatible or Bitcoin
will fork, but since the economic SUPER MAJORITY will be supporting bigger
blocks, the 1mb version of Bitcoin will likely be considered the alt.

Just because one code repository calls itself core doesn't give it exclusive rights
to control Bitcoin or call itself Bitcoin.   That's what people have been pointing out
for years when Bitcoin pessimists tried to argue that 'Bitcoin isn't decentralized
because it's run by a few core devs.'. Well, now we are seeing that indeed, it
is decentralized.  The core devs don't call all the shots and if they try to do
something the community doesn't like (such as take too long to increase
the blocksize), they will lose their power.

If one understands all this yet still insists on calling it an "altcoin", then
it is an attempt to mischaracterize and marginalize it, and an attempt
to influence opinion through misinformation (thus it is intellectually dishonest.)
It is also an attempt to force an outcome based on one's personal opinions
and biases, rather than allowing the economic majority to decide.




Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 09:24:55 PM

Because a year ago, the  average was about half of what it is today and therefore we will be out of space in a other year, never mind spikes, never mind unforeseen factors, never mind the time it takes to get consensus and do a rollout.

Okay. The average block size is still less than half of the limit. So why couldn't Gavin and Mike continue to work within the core community again?

Because of precisely what I said in the OP.  Greg wants us to literally run out space before doing anything.  He and the other core devs don't want to act.

And Gavin doesn't agree.  Nor does Mike, Jeff, a handful of major companies, and an increasing majority of miners.

I am 90% certain XT will end up being just another altcoin. Have fun supporting it. Hey, I like a lot of altcoins. Nothing wrong with that. But pretending it will replace bitcoin anytime in the next 3 years is fanciful thinking. I've never held an alt where I thought that would be the case. Gavin should have at least had the courtesy to come up with his own name instead of riding bitcoin's coat tails.

Well I'm 90% sure you're wrong and misinformed. 

You are misinformed.  

XT is an alt client that supports the Bitcoin blockchain and its rules and protocol.

The only difference is it will support bigger blocks IF AND WHEN 75% of the miners agree.
if and when that happens, core will either upgrade to be compatible or Bitcoin
will fork, but since the economic SUPER MAJORITY will be supporting bigger
blocks, the 1mb version of Bitcoin will likely be considered the alt.

Just because one code repository calls itself core doesn't give it exclusive rights
to control Bitcoin or call itself Bitcoin.   That's what people have been pointing out
for years when Bitcoin pessimists tried to argue that 'Bitcoin isn't decentralized
because it's run by a few core devs.'. Well, now we are seeing that indeed, it
is decentralized.  The core devs don't call all the shots and if they try to do
something the community doesn't like (such as take too long to increase
the blocksize), they will lose their power.

If one understands all this yet still insists on calling it an "altcoin", then
it is an attempt to mischaracterize and marginalize it, and an attempt
to influence opinion through misinformation (thus it is intellectually dishonest.)
It is also an attempt to force an outcome based on one's personal opinions
and biases, rather than allowing the economic majority to decide.



Why are we still talking about XT like it actually has a chance? Number of (fake) nodes already going down. Absolutely no support from miners...

Face it, it was dead on arrival.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 09:32:25 PM
no idea...the conversation between Nutildah and me went like this:

N: blocks are only at .44
J:  yes but doubling annually.
N: but then why can't Gavin work with core
J: Greg wants a standing backlog, he doesn't want to.
N: XT will be another altcoin
J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 09:42:42 PM

J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.


Until the fork, right? Then it is its own coin. Or are you going to argue with this, too?

Why try to make things more confusing for XT? You are just beating a dead horse.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 09:45:33 PM

J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.


Until the fork, right? Then it is its own coin. Or are you going to argue with this, too?

Why try to make things more confusing for XT? You are just beating a dead horse.

There won't be an XT created fork until and unless 75% of the miners are running Bip 101 and core refuses to upgrade.

If and when that happens, I suppose you can argue that XT is an altcoin but you'll be arguing against the economic supermajority who will say that 1mb Bitcoin is the alt.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 09:47:42 PM

J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.


Until the fork, right? Then it is its own coin. Or are you going to argue with this, too?

Why try to make things more confusing for XT? You are just beating a dead horse.

There won't be an XT created fork until and unless 75% of the miners are running Bip 101 and core refuses to upgrade.

If and when that happens, I suppose you can argue that XT is an altcoin but you'll be arguing against the economic majority.

OK lets talk again when XT surpasses BTC in market cap.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 09:51:11 PM
You can laugh all you want but it won't change the fact that these company with their BS money have more influence than you and me. You'd better accept this sooner than later.  Bitcoin is not more your money than their money.  

How can you be so oblivious in the face of reality?

BIP101 as implemented and supported by these companies is never going to see the light of the day. Miners are openly against such an increase. These company have been ridiculed in the span of only a week for supporting an openly dismissed proposal all because of Gavin.

It's a sad sad sight that all these "entrepreneurs" and VC can't think for themselves.

Miners have no choice to follow the market makers unless they want to mine a worthless coin. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Bitcoin holders are the market makers. not the miners, not the companies, not the devs, and certainly not the masses.

Speculators will go where the market makers are too.


speculators are the market's friggin nervous system!!

And speculators will follow the big money, to make money...

lol no, they might use them VC n00bs.. but as they say.. buy the rumor.. SELL THE NEWS ;D ;D ;D


edit: special kuddos to circle, bitpay, coinbase et al. having growth trouble much.. ^^

+ where my wall street boys?? :D :D


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 10:00:10 PM

J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.


Until the fork, right? Then it is its own coin. Or are you going to argue with this, too?

Why try to make things more confusing for XT? You are just beating a dead horse.

There won't be an XT created fork until and unless 75% of the miners are running Bip 101 and core refuses to upgrade.

If and when that happens, I suppose you can argue that XT is an altcoin but you'll be arguing against the economic majority.

OK lets talk again when XT surpasses BTC in market cap.

We can talk when there is ANY market cap, which there isn't because , again, XT is not a coin.  Hope I cleared that up for you. 

XT isn't the only way to bigger blocks.  Are you aware of the block votes ?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 10:17:32 PM

J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.


Until the fork, right? Then it is its own coin. Or are you going to argue with this, too?

Why try to make things more confusing for XT? You are just beating a dead horse.

There won't be an XT created fork until and unless 75% of the miners are running Bip 101 and core refuses to upgrade.

If and when that happens, I suppose you can argue that XT is an altcoin but you'll be arguing against the economic majority.

OK lets talk again when XT surpasses BTC in market cap.

Let's pretend the fork happens and the Core chain remains alive. When all of the industry including major exchanges switched to XT, following by speculatiors then the miners. New investment flow to XT chain simply because it scales and Core doest. By which logic you think Core will still keep a significant market cap? Because ideology of small blocks?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Jeremycoin on August 31, 2015, 10:45:33 PM
Well, in the final we can just see what will people choose.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 10:56:24 PM

We can talk when there is ANY market cap, which there isn't because , again, XT is not a coin.  Hope I cleared that up for you.  


If bitcoin forks (and it has been forked before, several times), you will have 2 blockchains, hence the need for 2 different names. You didn't clear up anything other than that you are a shill for XT.

Until XT surpasses BTC in market cap, it is a de facto altcoin. Its not a matter of opinion. Do you understand that "alt" is short for "alternate" or "alternative"? What coin do you think is being referenced as "primary"? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "b."


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 11:02:10 PM

We can talk when there is ANY market cap, which there isn't because , again, XT is not a coin.  Hope I cleared that up for you.  


If bitcoin forks (and it has before, several times), you will have 2 blockchains, hence the need for 2 different names. You didn't clear up anything other than that you are a shill for XT.

Until XT surpasses BTC in market cap, it is a de facto altcoin. Its not a matter of opinion.

"if" proposes a hypothetical, not a current reality, but we are getting into semantics.

I am not a shill for XT.  I never even brought up XT.  You did.  I would rather see bigger blocks happen without XT and fortunately that seems to be unfolding already as most miners are voting for bip 100.  

But knight22 posed an interesting question that I would be amused to see you answer.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 11:12:21 PM

"if" proposes a hypothetical, not a current reality, but we are getting into semantics.

I am not a shill for XT.  I never even brought up XT.  You did.  I would rather see bigger blocks happen without XT and fortunately that seems to be unfolding already as most miners are voting for bip 100.  

But knight22 posed an interesting question that I would be amused to see you answer.

Knight's question is also is based on the contingency of "if." That's why I ignored it.

If superior alien beings come to earth within the next year and knock out electric systems and infrastructure, bitcoin won't exist at all. That's also a pretty big "if."

Otherwise it sounds like we are actually in agreement.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
so... you ignore the hypothetical when it doesn't suit you and embrace it when it does.   :-\

Moreover, it was the very hypothetical that you insisted was likely (that XT becomes another altcoin) that you now refuse to consider. 



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: nutildah on August 31, 2015, 11:37:52 PM
Uh, what? I've got better things to do than argue semantics. You can pretend you won this argument if that makes you feel better.

Dude lets face it. None of our words matter. What will be, will be.

Que sera, sera.

PS: You still anti-vaccination?


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on August 31, 2015, 11:42:57 PM

Dude lets face it. None of our words matter. What will be, will be.


Agree.  The purpose of this thread was to question the wisdom of sir Gregory which until
I recently I assumed was beyond reproach, but I am no longer operating under that bias.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 04:06:35 AM
What the block size debate reflected is a serials of consideration about the design philosophy behind a decentralized monetary system

To serve others or let others serve you, that is the question

The Federal Reserve never care about average users transaction demand, their interbank settlement system is old and slow, but they just print tons of money and people still worship them and happily use dollar everywhere. People even invented paypal, visa, master card to do thousands of transactions per second to help them to spread their money. Why?  It's effect of authority, their authority gains average people's trust, they don't need to sort out the rest of the technical details

Similarly, if bitcoin can establish such authority image in the eyes of average user, any technical problem will be solved by people voluntarily

Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: meono on September 01, 2015, 05:22:45 AM
What the block size debate reflected is a serials of consideration about the design philosophy behind a decentralized monetary system

To serve others or let others serve you, that is the question

The Federal Reserve never care about average users transaction demand, their interbank settlement system is old and slow, but they just print tons of money and people still worship them and happily use dollar everywhere. People even invented paypal, visa, master card to do thousands of transactions per second to help them to spread their money. Why?  It's effect of authority, their authority gains average people's trust, they don't need to sort out the rest of the technical details

Similarly, if bitcoin can establish such authority image in the eyes of average user, any technical problem will be solved by people voluntarily

Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority


I like how you balantly ignore that bitcoin core is already centralized. I love how you conclude that blocksize increase means less decentralization when almost every new bitcoin users use spv client.

Meanwhile you implied having addons like paypal somehow improves decentralization. Stupid much? Or you're just having brain fart as usual.



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: poeEDgar on September 01, 2015, 05:43:04 AM
decentralization holds higher priority

Sing it.

Anyway, what's gotten into you people? What is all this panic about? Am I crazy or are we not even pushing .5MB blocks on average? The only thing irrational panic will cause is irrational decisions. Seems like that's what XT is about.....making people believe there is one option: raise the limit, take the first option available and do it immediately in case a billion people adopt bitcoin tomorrow. Thank goodness people now realize there are other BIPs, and more to come.

With my rudimentary understanding of large scale systems..... I will say that it's almost offensive that people are suggesting that what is true in the context of a 1MB block limit is true in the context of an 8GB block limit. I'll defer to the experts on the details, but security is paramount. Allowing limitless, or near-limitless scaling could be a nightmare.....it could cause the number of full nodes to plunge due to cost, it could cause block propagation times to skyrocket and result in much higher volume of orphaned blocks.....it could literally cut off entire regions of miners and full nodes if bandwidth limitations do not improve to the level of capacity increases...... more importantly, it can and will cause a multitude of problems that we have not even thought of yet -- since bitcoin has never been tested under such conditions.

A 2X increase would allow ample time for us to study the issues that come with scaling and address them. An 8000X increase, hard-coded? Good luck.

And using Moore's Law to predict transaction volume, really? That's a fucking insult to any thinking person. So now a failing theory on processor capacity is the basis to predict capacity needs in a social system? I think Gavin Anderson should take Logic 101, even if he's dead set on believing in Moore's Law (which is sort of laughable).

This whole thing is a like a sick joke..... it's like people are using their fantasies of exponential adoption and $100k bitcoins and using zero foresight to push something that could end up completely destroying confidence in bitcoin.....

Without security, your bitcoins are worthless. BIP101 supporters, can you guarantee the security of the network at 8GB block limit? Of course you can't. Bitcoin has spent its entire life with blocks at considerably less than 1MB. Have you ever considered what happens when a tick-tock model begins outrunning our abilities to support it?

Oh, sure. We can soft fork the limit down after a magnificent fuck-up that cripples confidence in bitcoin. Can you ensure that transactions aren't rolled back? Double spends won't be performed? Have you any idea how much money could be lost due to this reckless idiocy?

Basically, the totality of reasoning behind the recklessness of BIP101 are these words from Gavin Anderson:

Quote
I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 05:58:06 AM
What the block size debate reflected is a serials of consideration about the design philosophy behind a decentralized monetary system

To serve others or let others serve you, that is the question

The Federal Reserve never care about average users transaction demand, their interbank settlement system is old and slow, but they just print tons of money and people still worship them and happily use dollar everywhere. People even invented paypal, visa, master card to do thousands of transactions per second to help them to spread their money. Why?  It's effect of authority, their authority gains average people's trust, they don't need to sort out the rest of the technical details

Similarly, if bitcoin can establish such authority image in the eyes of average user, any technical problem will be solved by people voluntarily

Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority


I like how you balantly ignore that bitcoin core is already centralized. I love how you conclude that blocksize increase means less decentralization when almost every new bitcoin users use spv client.

Meanwhile you implied having addons like paypal somehow improves decentralization. Stupid much? Or you're just having brain fart as usual.



On that subject, I am posting this here for observers to understand this is a misrepresentation of the dynamics at stake and a disingenuous lie:

Quote
It is known that ~90% (at least of the nodes accepting incoming connections) are running Bitcoin Core software. This does not mean that Bitcoin is somehow less decentralized. Bitcoin Core is open source, it has many contributors from all over the world and there are many pull requests - most of them do get merged if you check the commit history. It is widely used because the quality of the code is 5 stars. There are other implementations as well, they are just not widely used. This does not mean one is not free to write his own implementation of the Bitcoin protocol (assuming he follows the consensus rules of the network). The biggest problem is convincing users to adopt that implementation, which is a normal thing which happens in general, not only related to software implementations.

The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to try other implementations as well, but something serious, because Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not something to play with.

This is the reason why a lot of developers contribute to Bitcoin Core rather than writing their own implementation. This only makes Bitcoin Core stronger, better, and obviously the result is that it has majority in the ecosystem for good reasons. If I'm experienced in a certain segment related to software developing, I am better of in contributing to Bitcoin Core just with the part I know instead of writing from scratch my own implementation.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010796.html


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: S4VV4S on September 01, 2015, 06:36:41 AM
You're only demonstrating that you're incapable of a basic level of understanding.

1. Those Core devs had open concerns about raising the block size limit before Blockstream. So their position clearly isn't a consequence of Blockstream's existence.

2. Both sidechains and the lightning network (and LN did not come from Blockstream) would benefit from bigger blocks, so if anything the supposed "conflict of interest" should have caused them to change their opinion.

Now, do you understand those two very basic points or should I type them slower?



Maybe you are right but their inaction speaks louder than any argument they could make at the moment. It's up to them to prove they don't have ill intention even if they are in such position. So far so good they have done nothing to prove it.

Sorry, but how do you expect them to prove they don't have ill intention?
Give the funding money back?
Quit from Blockstream?

And how would they make a living then?
Your donations?

What about Gavin and Mike Hearn?
How do they prove they don't have ill intentions?
Didn't they try to pass a blacklisting code in their version of a Bitcoin client?

Now, when you answer all above questions, please explain to me WHY do all of you still argue and fight each other when you can easily modify the code (with only a slight block increase)?

It's because you guys want to be governed.
It's either Gavin or the rest of the devs, right?
I completely forgot that Bitcoin is decentralized, and thank God we have the above mentioned options..... ::)



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 01, 2015, 02:49:56 PM
I think in addition to the possible conflicts of interest surrounding
blockstream, the core Bitcoin development process itself is broken. 
Gavin talked about this recently and mentioned it used to be
he would just make decisions if the team couldn't agree, but
he has stepped down from doing that.

So, it may partially be intentional stonewalling by blockstream devs, and may also be partially the fact
that there's no clear way to move forward with changes that are controversial,
which is why I think multiple implementations such as XT are a good thing.



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 02:59:21 PM
I think in addition to the possible conflicts of interest surrounding
blockstream, the core Bitcoin development process itself is broken.  
Gavin talked about this recently and mentioned it used to be
he would just make decisions if the team couldn't agree, but
he has stepped down from doing that.

So, it may partially be intentional stonewalling by blockstream devs, and may also be partially the fact
that there's no clear way to move forward with changes that are controversial,
which is why I think multiple implementations such as XT are a good thing.


I don't understand the worry about multiple implementations--especially if most fork from Core (like XT did).  This seems like a great way to make progress and return the power of choice back to the user base.  

I started a thread on this topic in bitcoin-dev with the provocative title "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes."  Adam Back, Greg Maxwell and Wladimir seem to think it's a bad idea (I disagree):

Adam: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010809.html
Greg: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010803.html
Wladimir: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010816.html


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 01, 2015, 03:16:50 PM
I think in addition to the possible conflicts of interest surrounding
blockstream, the core Bitcoin development process itself is broken.  
Gavin talked about this recently and mentioned it used to be
he would just make decisions if the team couldn't agree, but
he has stepped down from doing that.

So, it may partially be intentional stonewalling by blockstream devs, and may also be partially the fact
that there's no clear way to move forward with changes that are controversial,
which is why I think multiple implementations such as XT are a good thing.


I don't understand the worry about multiple implementations--especially if most fork from Core (like XT did).  This seems like a great way to make progress and return the power of choice back to the user base.  

I started a thread on this topic in bitcoin-dev with the provocative title "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes."  Adam Back, Greg Maxwell and Wladimir seem to think it's a bad idea (I disagree):

Adam: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010809.html
Greg: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010803.html
Wladimir: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010816.html

Peter, I definitely applaud your efforts with getting involved in Bitcoin development.
For sure, we need knowledgable people like you giving checks and balances.

I think Adam has some fair points there and alerts us of things to be careful of,
however needless to say he may be biased just as Greg is. 

Interestingly, Greg's comment seems to give tacit approval to alternate implementations.

Personally, I don't think we should "kill" core  :P but simply keep growing Bitcoin
and try to formalize and document the protocol.





Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on September 01, 2015, 03:26:35 PM
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. :D

what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? ::)

plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: notbatman on September 01, 2015, 03:39:33 PM
...[snip]..
Bitcoin is about censorship free money. For everything else there's Mastercard.
You've hit the nail on the head there.



School me with BIP101? Put on your concrete galoshes and go jump in lake fancy boys!

#rekt


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 04:41:07 PM
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. :D

what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? ::)

plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere.

Well, I've made zero code contributions to Bitcoin Core.

Regarding what qualifies for posting on the dev mailing list, in the future I'd prefer to see this channel reserved for lower-level code development.  Higher-level discourse on topics that are academic in nature (scientific research, policy development, governance, etc.) would probably be better suited to a more formal and interdisciplinary communication channel, with wider dissemination and rigorous peer review.  Unfortunately, no such outlet is yet available.

Expect to hear an announcement about an exciting initiative to begin addressing this in the next few weeks.  


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on September 01, 2015, 04:43:32 PM
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. :D

what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? ::)

plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere.

Well, I've made zero code contributions to Bitcoin Core.

-stupid self talking crap-

There, now move along.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: knight22 on September 01, 2015, 04:47:46 PM
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. :D

what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? ::)

plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere.

Well, I've made zero code contributions to Bitcoin Core.

-stupid self talking crap-

There, now move along.

From all the people in this forum you are probably the least interesting.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 04:50:58 PM
Peter, I definitely applaud your efforts with getting involved in Bitcoin development.
For sure, we need knowledgable people like you giving checks and balances.

I think Adam has some fair points there and alerts us of things to be careful of,
however needless to say he may be biased just as Greg is. 

Interestingly, Greg's comment seems to give tacit approval to alternate implementations.

Thank you for the compliment, Jonald.  I was surprised to see Greg's tacit approval for the idea, actually.  The concerns Adam brought up are fair, like you said, and something new forks from Bitcoin Core (like XT) need to be aware of.   

Quote
Personally, I don't think we should "kill" core  :P but simply keep growing Bitcoin
and try to formalize and document the protocol.

Just poking the bear ;)



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: trashman43 on September 01, 2015, 06:24:48 PM
decentralization holds higher priority

Sing it.

Anyway, what's gotten into you people? What is all this panic about? Am I crazy or are we not even pushing .5MB blocks on average? The only thing irrational panic will cause is irrational decisions. Seems like that's what XT is about.....making people believe there is one option: raise the limit, take the first option available and do it immediately in case a billion people adopt bitcoin tomorrow. Thank goodness people now realize there are other BIPs, and more to come.

With my rudimentary understanding of large scale systems..... I will say that it's almost offensive that people are suggesting that what is true in the context of a 1MB block limit is true in the context of an 8GB block limit. I'll defer to the experts on the details, but security is paramount. Allowing limitless, or near-limitless scaling could be a nightmare.....it could cause the number of full nodes to plunge due to cost, it could cause block propagation times to skyrocket and result in much higher volume of orphaned blocks.....it could literally cut off entire regions of miners and full nodes if bandwidth limitations do not improve to the level of capacity increases...... more importantly, it can and will cause a multitude of problems that we have not even thought of yet -- since bitcoin has never been tested under such conditions.

A 2X increase would allow ample time for us to study the issues that come with scaling and address them. An 8000X increase, hard-coded? Good luck.

And using Moore's Law to predict transaction volume, really? That's a fucking insult to any thinking person. So now a failing theory on processor capacity is the basis to predict capacity needs in a social system? I think Gavin Anderson should take Logic 101, even if he's dead set on believing in Moore's Law (which is sort of laughable).

This whole thing is a like a sick joke..... it's like people are using their fantasies of exponential adoption and $100k bitcoins and using zero foresight to push something that could end up completely destroying confidence in bitcoin.....

Without security, your bitcoins are worthless. BIP101 supporters, can you guarantee the security of the network at 8GB block limit? Of course you can't. Bitcoin has spent its entire life with blocks at considerably less than 1MB. Have you ever considered what happens when a tick-tock model begins outrunning our abilities to support it?

Oh, sure. We can soft fork the limit down after a magnificent fuck-up that cripples confidence in bitcoin. Can you ensure that transactions aren't rolled back? Double spends won't be performed? Have you any idea how much money could be lost due to this reckless idiocy?

Basically, the totality of reasoning behind the recklessness of BIP101 are these words from Gavin Anderson:

Quote
I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better.

+1

nuff said


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Zarathustra on September 01, 2015, 07:13:28 PM
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. :D

what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? ::)

plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere.

Well, I've made zero code contributions to Bitcoin Core.

-stupid self talking crap-

There, now move along.

From all the people in this forum you are probably the least interesting.

Indeed.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on September 01, 2015, 10:08:13 PM
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. :D

what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? ::)

plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere.

Well, I've made zero code contributions to Bitcoin Core.

-stupid self talking crap-

There, now move along.

From all the people in this forum you are probably the least interesting.


dont even know why i take the time to respond but there you go:

http://lovelace-media.imgix.net/uploads/141/d6607eb0-dde3-0131-6cb6-0aa0f90d87b4.gif?

now you are on ignore. bye :)


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 10:36:08 PM

Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority

I like how you blatantly ignore that bitcoin core is already centralized. I love how you conclude that blocksize increase means less decentralization when almost every new bitcoin users use spv client.

Meanwhile you implied having addons like paypal somehow improves decentralization. Stupid much? Or you're just having brain fart as usual.


Indeed, the bitcoin development is already centralized, but at least a group of core devs can still balance each other. But if you go for the XT branch which have exclusive leadership under Gavin, then you better understand what you are doing. Here are some text you should check about the governance model in GIT:

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/inside-the-fight-over-bitcoins-future

"Theoretically, any user of an open-source program is free to create, adopt, or reject any alterations he pleases; in practice, software shared on networks or between users requires painstaking standardization. This means relying on decision-makers with “commit access,” who have the right to amend a software project directly, on their own. This status represents a high level of developer control, and of user trust.

Andresen told me that, to his recollection, when Nakamoto withdrew from the project (and from public view), in 2011, only he, Nakamoto, and possibly one other person had commit access to Bitcoin’s software. Andresen eventually granted this level of access to four additional developers, for a total of five “core devs.” In April, 2014, Andresen decided to devote more of his time to other projects, and named one of the core devs, Wladimir van der Laan, to succeed him as lead developer. Even today, only van der Laan and Andresen can grant commit access to other developers of Bitcoin Core.

“Right now,” Andresen added, “just Mike and I have commit access to Bitcoin XT.”

"In the absence of institutions capable of implementing clear standards, it’s plain that Andresen and Hearn decided to take matters into their own hands. XT is above all a path toward establishing new leadership. I asked Andresen whether, if XT were to achieve full acceptance, he would then include all the earlier Bitcoin core devs in the new XT team. He replied that “[XT] will have a different set of developers. Part of the reason for forking is to have a clear decision-making process for the software development.”


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: meono on September 01, 2015, 10:48:15 PM

Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority

I like how you blatantly ignore that bitcoin core is already centralized. I love how you conclude that blocksize increase means less decentralization when almost every new bitcoin users use spv client.

Meanwhile you implied having addons like paypal somehow improves decentralization. Stupid much? Or you're just having brain fart as usual.


Indeed, the bitcoin development is already centralized, but at least a group of core devs can still balance each other. But if you go for the XT branch which have exclusive leadership under Gavin, then you better understand what you are doing. Here are some text you should check about the governance model in GIT:

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/inside-the-fight-over-bitcoins-future

"Theoretically, any user of an open-source program is free to create, adopt, or reject any alterations he pleases; in practice, software shared on networks or between users requires painstaking standardization. This means relying on decision-makers with “commit access,” who have the right to amend a software project directly, on their own. This status represents a high level of developer control, and of user trust.

Andresen told me that, to his recollection, when Nakamoto withdrew from the project (and from public view), in 2011, only he, Nakamoto, and possibly one other person had commit access to Bitcoin’s software. Andresen eventually granted this level of access to four additional developers, for a total of five “core devs.” In April, 2014, Andresen decided to devote more of his time to other projects, and named one of the core devs, Wladimir van der Laan, to succeed him as lead developer. Even today, only van der Laan and Andresen can grant commit access to other developers of Bitcoin Core.

“Right now,” Andresen added, “just Mike and I have commit access to Bitcoin XT.”

"In the absence of institutions capable of implementing clear standards, it’s plain that Andresen and Hearn decided to take matters into their own hands. XT is above all a path toward establishing new leadership. I asked Andresen whether, if XT were to achieve full acceptance, he would then include all the earlier Bitcoin core devs in the new XT team. He replied that “[XT] will have a different set of developers. Part of the reason for forking is to have a clear decision-making process for the software development.”


If you can stop assuming everyone is an idiot but you then we can have a conversation.

Just maybe you're not as smart as everyone else? Ever think of that?

FYI, the ability to choose different implementation is the first step of having decentralized development. If you cant grasp this fact, go think about it some more. Having how many numbers of devs behind an implementation does not matter if you cant have another to choose.


Also are you ignoring my other question? That blocksize increase cause more centralization in the bitcoin network?

 


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: poeEDgar on September 01, 2015, 11:02:27 PM
People seem confused. The protocol is decentralized, and ideally will stay that way. The development process has never been and does not need to be decentralized. That's completely irrelevant to the protocol. People are free to develop whatever they want, but the purpose of consensus is to make contentious hard forks unlikely. I have no problem with a non-Core development team, but I wouldn't expect that severely untested code which has not been achieved through any formal consensus would be backed by even a modicum of hashing power.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 11:08:31 PM

If you can stop assuming everyone is an idiot but you then we can have a conversation.

Just maybe you're not as smart as everyone else? Ever think of that?

FYI, the ability to choose different implementation is the first step of having decentralized development. If you cant grasp this fact, go think about it some more. Having how many numbers of devs behind an implementation does not matter if you cant have another to choose.

Also are you ignoring my other question? That blocksize increase cause more centralization in the bitcoin network?
 

 You are basically proving that you have the same mindset as Gavin: The smartest should be the king and rule others. Unfortunately, people vote with their foot when they feel that you are smarter  ;D



Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: meono on September 01, 2015, 11:55:12 PM

If you can stop assuming everyone is an idiot but you then we can have a conversation.

Just maybe you're not as smart as everyone else? Ever think of that?

FYI, the ability to choose different implementation is the first step of having decentralized development. If you cant grasp this fact, go think about it some more. Having how many numbers of devs behind an implementation does not matter if you cant have another to choose.

Also are you ignoring my other question? That blocksize increase cause more centralization in the bitcoin network?
 

 You are basically proving that you have the same mindset as Gavin: The smartest should be the king and rule others. Unfortunately, people vote with their foot when they feel that you are smarter  ;D



You sound like any many of those antiXT dummies. Ignoring question while making dumb statements as facts.

Btw what happens to your "omg these mining corps are not in satoshi's vision" ? now that BIP100 will even give them more control?  ....

I guess you're just jumping on whatever bandwagon that oppose bitcoinXT huh? What a joke you are.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:28:36 AM
People seem confused. The protocol is decentralized, and ideally will stay that way. The development process has never been and does not need to be decentralized. That's completely irrelevant to the protocol. People are free to develop whatever they want, but the purpose of consensus is to make contentious hard forks unlikely. I have no problem with a non-Core development team, but I wouldn't expect that severely untested code which has not been achieved through any formal consensus would be backed by even a modicum of hashing power.

You are right that they are two different things, but why shouldn't we try to also decentralize the development process.  Don't you see a benefit in that?
There is certainly turmoil right now because large segments of the Bitcoin community don't agree with how the centralized process is going.



 You are basically proving that you have the same mindset as Gavin: The smartest should be the king and rule others. Unfortunately, people vote with their foot when they feel that you are smarter  ;D



From what I've observed, Gavin doesn't have that attitude at all.  That's why he stepped down from being the lead developer.
Actions speak louder than words.  If he was still "ruling", he would have already implemented Bip 101.   


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 12:47:30 AM
People seem confused. The protocol is decentralized, and ideally will stay that way. The development process has never been and does not need to be decentralized. That's completely irrelevant to the protocol. People are free to develop whatever they want, but the purpose of consensus is to make contentious hard forks unlikely. I have no problem with a non-Core development team, but I wouldn't expect that severely untested code which has not been achieved through any formal consensus would be backed by even a modicum of hashing power.

You are right that they are two different things, but why shouldn't we try to also decentralize the development process.  Don't you see a benefit in that?
There is certainly turmoil right now because large segments of the Bitcoin community don't agree with how the centralized process is going.

Like I said, people can develop whatever they want. But I believe (and hope) that few will support code that is controversial and untested. "Centralization" of the development process isn't a problem in and of itself, and has no bearing on whether bitcoin is decentralized.

People disagree about how to approach the block size limit. That doesn't mean that forming sectarian camps is going to be fruitful.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 03:39:56 AM


People disagree about how to approach the block size limit. That doesn't mean that forming sectarian camps is going to be fruitful.

You're right.  It doesn't necessarily mean that.  Consensus is difficult.  One thing though, is that if we did have different 'camps'
as you put it, I feel it would perhaps remove some of the biases and allow a better debate. 


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: Holliday on September 02, 2015, 05:34:09 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 05:39:28 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).

Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks?  A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 05:44:01 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).

Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks?  A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want.

Huh? How does that work if other miners are propagating blocks that are > 1MB......


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 05:47:18 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).

Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks?  A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want.

Because you will be run off the network by larger miners pushing big blocks


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 05:48:23 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).

Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks?  A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want.

Huh? How does that work if other miners are propagating blocks that are > 1MB......

Thats true, but typically download speeds are faster than upload speeds.

This brings up the issue of SPV mining which Is going to have to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
I don't think that can be solved simply by keeping blocks small.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 05:54:37 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).

Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks?  A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want.

Huh? How does that work if other miners are propagating blocks that are > 1MB......

Thats true, but typically download speeds are faster than upload speeds.

This brings up the issue of SPV mining which Is going to have to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
I don't think that can be solved simply by keeping blocks small.

Large, well-connected miners will soon benefit from near constant propagation time. Smaller miners (over Tor for example) will get drowned out the network.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 07:54:34 PM
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free?

Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example.

I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues...

No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive?

Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers?

For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable.

My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things).

Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks?  A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want.

Huh? How does that work if other miners are propagating blocks that are > 1MB......

Thats true, but typically download speeds are faster than upload speeds.
So what? When you download a block over Tor, the exit node uploads it to you. Try to apply you argument again.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 07:58:57 PM
By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 08:08:06 PM
By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on September 03, 2015, 12:22:14 AM
Gmaxwell did the thankless task of debunking Peter R here:

Code:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Peter R <peter_r at gmx.com> wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> I am moving our conversation into public as I've recently learned that
> you've been forwarding our private email conversation verbatim without
> my permission [I received permission from dpinna to share the email
> below that proves this fact].

Unfortunately, your work extensive as it was made at least two
non-disclosed or poorly-disclosed simplifying assumptions and a significant
system understanding error which, I believe, undermined it completely.

In short these were:

* You assume miners do not have the ability to change their level
centralization.

 -- In fact they do, not just in theory but in pratice have responded
    to orphaning this way in the past; and it is one of the major
    concerns in this space.

* You assume the supply of bitcoin is infinite (that subsidy never
declines)

 -- It declines geometrically, and must if the 21m limit is to be upheld.
    (Though I think this is not equally important as the other concerns)

* You argue, incorrectly, that amount of information which must be
transmitted at the moment a block is discovered is proportional to the
block's size.

 -- Instead the same information can be transmitted _in advance_, as
 has been previously proposed, and various techniques can make doing
 so arbitrarily efficient.

[I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the posted off-list
discussion]

I contacted you in private as a courtesy in the hope that it would be
a more productive pathway to improving our collective understanding; as well
as a courtesy to the readers of the list in consideration of traffic levels.

In one sense, this was a success: Our conversation concluded with you
enumerating a series of corrective actions that you would take:

--------
> 1.  I will make it more clear that the results of the paper hinge on
> the assumption that block solutions are propagated across channels,
> and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution
> is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block.
>
> 2.  I will add a note [unless you ask me not to] something to the effect
> of "Greg Maxwell challenges the claim that the coding gain cannot
> be infinite…" followed by a summary of the scenario you described.
> I will reference "personal communication."  I will also run the note
> by you before I make the next revision public.
>
> 3.  I will point out that if the coding gain can be made spectacularly
> high, that the propagation impedance in my model will become very small,
> and that although a fee market may strictly exist in the asymptotic
> sense, such a fee market may not be relevant (the phenomena in the paper
> would be negligible compared to the dynamics from some other effect).
>
> 4. [UNRELATED] I also plan to address Dave Hudson's objections in my
> next revision (the "you don't orphan your own block" point).
>
> Lastly, thank you for the note about what might happen when fees >
> rewards.  I've have indeed been thinking about this.  I believe it is
> outside the scope of the present paper, although I am doing some work
> on the topic.  (Perhaps I'll add a bit more discussion on this topic
> to the present paper to get the reader thinking in this direction).
--------

To the best of my knowledge, you've taken none of these corrective
actions in the nearly month that has passed.  I certainly understand being
backlogged, but you've also continued to make public comments about your
work seemingly (to me) in contradiction with the above corrective actions.

Today I discovered that another author spent their time extending your
work and wasn't made aware of these points.  A result was that the other
author's work may require significant revisions.

I complained about this to you, again privately, and your (apparent)
response was to post to that thread stating that there was a
details-unspecified academic disagreement with me and "I look forward
to a white paper demonstrating otherwise!", in direct contradiction to
your remarks to me three weeks ago in private correspondence: In private
you said that your model may only hold in an asymptotic sense and that
"the phenomena in the paper (may) be negligible compared to the dynamics
from some other effect"; but in public you said /my/ position was
"academic".

At this point I thought continuing to withhold this information from
the other author was unreasonable and no longer justified by courtesy
to you, and I forwarded our complete discussion to the other author
with the comment "I'll forward you a set of private correspondence
that I've had with Peter R.  I would recommend you take the time to
read it and consider it.".

I apologize if in doing so I've breached your confidence, none of the
material we discussed was a sort that I would have ordinarily considered
private, and you had already talked about making the product of our
communication published as part of your corrective actions.
I do not think it would be reasonable to demand that I spent time
repeating the same discussion again with the other author, or deprive
them of your side of it and/or the corrective actions which you had
said you would take but have not yet taken.

(In fact, I would argue that you were already obligated to share at least the
substance of the discussion  with the other author, both as part of your
commitment to me as well it being necessiary for intellectual progress.)

As you say, 'we are all here trying to learn about this new amazing
thing called Bitcoin'; and I'm not embarrassed to error towards doing
that and aiding others in doing so, but at the same time I am sorry
to have done so in a way which caused you some injury.

In any case, your prior proposed corrective actions seemed sufficient to me.

It surprises me, greatly, that you are failing to see the extreme
practicality of what I described to you, and that it does not meaningfully
diminish miner control of transaction selection-- but even without it your
remark that the proportionality could be arbitrarily small (Rather than
0, as I argue) is an adequate correction to your work, in my view.

I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero.

Cheers,

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010744.html




TL;DR:

Peter R be like:

"I will carry on my verbal diarrhea until gavin and hearn give me a popsicle.."


Gmax:

"I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero."




lmao


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 12:29:18 AM
Gmaxwell did the thankless task of debunking Peter R here:

Code:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Peter R <peter_r at gmx.com> wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> I am moving our conversation into public as I've recently learned that
> you've been forwarding our private email conversation verbatim without
> my permission [I received permission from dpinna to share the email
> below that proves this fact].

Unfortunately, your work extensive as it was made at least two
non-disclosed or poorly-disclosed simplifying assumptions and a significant
system understanding error which, I believe, undermined it completely.

In short these were:

* You assume miners do not have the ability to change their level
centralization.

 -- In fact they do, not just in theory but in pratice have responded
    to orphaning this way in the past; and it is one of the major
    concerns in this space.

* You assume the supply of bitcoin is infinite (that subsidy never
declines)

 -- It declines geometrically, and must if the 21m limit is to be upheld.
    (Though I think this is not equally important as the other concerns)

* You argue, incorrectly, that amount of information which must be
transmitted at the moment a block is discovered is proportional to the
block's size.

 -- Instead the same information can be transmitted _in advance_, as
 has been previously proposed, and various techniques can make doing
 so arbitrarily efficient.

[I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the posted off-list
discussion]

I contacted you in private as a courtesy in the hope that it would be
a more productive pathway to improving our collective understanding; as well
as a courtesy to the readers of the list in consideration of traffic levels.

In one sense, this was a success: Our conversation concluded with you
enumerating a series of corrective actions that you would take:

--------
> 1.  I will make it more clear that the results of the paper hinge on
> the assumption that block solutions are propagated across channels,
> and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution
> is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block.
>
> 2.  I will add a note [unless you ask me not to] something to the effect
> of "Greg Maxwell challenges the claim that the coding gain cannot
> be infinite…" followed by a summary of the scenario you described.
> I will reference "personal communication."  I will also run the note
> by you before I make the next revision public.
>
> 3.  I will point out that if the coding gain can be made spectacularly
> high, that the propagation impedance in my model will become very small,
> and that although a fee market may strictly exist in the asymptotic
> sense, such a fee market may not be relevant (the phenomena in the paper
> would be negligible compared to the dynamics from some other effect).
>
> 4. [UNRELATED] I also plan to address Dave Hudson's objections in my
> next revision (the "you don't orphan your own block" point).
>
> Lastly, thank you for the note about what might happen when fees >
> rewards.  I've have indeed been thinking about this.  I believe it is
> outside the scope of the present paper, although I am doing some work
> on the topic.  (Perhaps I'll add a bit more discussion on this topic
> to the present paper to get the reader thinking in this direction).
--------

To the best of my knowledge, you've taken none of these corrective
actions in the nearly month that has passed.  I certainly understand being
backlogged, but you've also continued to make public comments about your
work seemingly (to me) in contradiction with the above corrective actions.

Today I discovered that another author spent their time extending your
work and wasn't made aware of these points.  A result was that the other
author's work may require significant revisions.

I complained about this to you, again privately, and your (apparent)
response was to post to that thread stating that there was a
details-unspecified academic disagreement with me and "I look forward
to a white paper demonstrating otherwise!", in direct contradiction to
your remarks to me three weeks ago in private correspondence: In private
you said that your model may only hold in an asymptotic sense and that
"the phenomena in the paper (may) be negligible compared to the dynamics
from some other effect"; but in public you said /my/ position was
"academic".

At this point I thought continuing to withhold this information from
the other author was unreasonable and no longer justified by courtesy
to you, and I forwarded our complete discussion to the other author
with the comment "I'll forward you a set of private correspondence
that I've had with Peter R.  I would recommend you take the time to
read it and consider it.".

I apologize if in doing so I've breached your confidence, none of the
material we discussed was a sort that I would have ordinarily considered
private, and you had already talked about making the product of our
communication published as part of your corrective actions.
I do not think it would be reasonable to demand that I spent time
repeating the same discussion again with the other author, or deprive
them of your side of it and/or the corrective actions which you had
said you would take but have not yet taken.

(In fact, I would argue that you were already obligated to share at least the
substance of the discussion  with the other author, both as part of your
commitment to me as well it being necessiary for intellectual progress.)

As you say, 'we are all here trying to learn about this new amazing
thing called Bitcoin'; and I'm not embarrassed to error towards doing
that and aiding others in doing so, but at the same time I am sorry
to have done so in a way which caused you some injury.

In any case, your prior proposed corrective actions seemed sufficient to me.

It surprises me, greatly, that you are failing to see the extreme
practicality of what I described to you, and that it does not meaningfully
diminish miner control of transaction selection-- but even without it your
remark that the proportionality could be arbitrarily small (Rather than
0, as I argue) is an adequate correction to your work, in my view.

I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero.

Cheers,

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010744.html


"I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero."


lmao

Have you read the whole email exhange? I can't believe Peter would bring that up, this is one of the worst case of self-exposing I've seen on the internet  :D


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: hdbuck on September 03, 2015, 12:45:04 AM
Gmaxwell did the thankless task of debunking Peter R here:

Code:
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Peter R <peter_r at gmx.com> wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> I am moving our conversation into public as I've recently learned that
> you've been forwarding our private email conversation verbatim without
> my permission [I received permission from dpinna to share the email
> below that proves this fact].

Unfortunately, your work extensive as it was made at least two
non-disclosed or poorly-disclosed simplifying assumptions and a significant
system understanding error which, I believe, undermined it completely.

In short these were:

* You assume miners do not have the ability to change their level
centralization.

 -- In fact they do, not just in theory but in pratice have responded
    to orphaning this way in the past; and it is one of the major
    concerns in this space.

* You assume the supply of bitcoin is infinite (that subsidy never
declines)

 -- It declines geometrically, and must if the 21m limit is to be upheld.
    (Though I think this is not equally important as the other concerns)

* You argue, incorrectly, that amount of information which must be
transmitted at the moment a block is discovered is proportional to the
block's size.

 -- Instead the same information can be transmitted _in advance_, as
 has been previously proposed, and various techniques can make doing
 so arbitrarily efficient.

[I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the posted off-list
discussion]

I contacted you in private as a courtesy in the hope that it would be
a more productive pathway to improving our collective understanding; as well
as a courtesy to the readers of the list in consideration of traffic levels.

In one sense, this was a success: Our conversation concluded with you
enumerating a series of corrective actions that you would take:

--------
> 1.  I will make it more clear that the results of the paper hinge on
> the assumption that block solutions are propagated across channels,
> and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution
> is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block.
>
> 2.  I will add a note [unless you ask me not to] something to the effect
> of "Greg Maxwell challenges the claim that the coding gain cannot
> be infinite…" followed by a summary of the scenario you described.
> I will reference "personal communication."  I will also run the note
> by you before I make the next revision public.
>
> 3.  I will point out that if the coding gain can be made spectacularly
> high, that the propagation impedance in my model will become very small,
> and that although a fee market may strictly exist in the asymptotic
> sense, such a fee market may not be relevant (the phenomena in the paper
> would be negligible compared to the dynamics from some other effect).
>
> 4. [UNRELATED] I also plan to address Dave Hudson's objections in my
> next revision (the "you don't orphan your own block" point).
>
> Lastly, thank you for the note about what might happen when fees >
> rewards.  I've have indeed been thinking about this.  I believe it is
> outside the scope of the present paper, although I am doing some work
> on the topic.  (Perhaps I'll add a bit more discussion on this topic
> to the present paper to get the reader thinking in this direction).
--------

To the best of my knowledge, you've taken none of these corrective
actions in the nearly month that has passed.  I certainly understand being
backlogged, but you've also continued to make public comments about your
work seemingly (to me) in contradiction with the above corrective actions.

Today I discovered that another author spent their time extending your
work and wasn't made aware of these points.  A result was that the other
author's work may require significant revisions.

I complained about this to you, again privately, and your (apparent)
response was to post to that thread stating that there was a
details-unspecified academic disagreement with me and "I look forward
to a white paper demonstrating otherwise!", in direct contradiction to
your remarks to me three weeks ago in private correspondence: In private
you said that your model may only hold in an asymptotic sense and that
"the phenomena in the paper (may) be negligible compared to the dynamics
from some other effect"; but in public you said /my/ position was
"academic".

At this point I thought continuing to withhold this information from
the other author was unreasonable and no longer justified by courtesy
to you, and I forwarded our complete discussion to the other author
with the comment "I'll forward you a set of private correspondence
that I've had with Peter R.  I would recommend you take the time to
read it and consider it.".

I apologize if in doing so I've breached your confidence, none of the
material we discussed was a sort that I would have ordinarily considered
private, and you had already talked about making the product of our
communication published as part of your corrective actions.
I do not think it would be reasonable to demand that I spent time
repeating the same discussion again with the other author, or deprive
them of your side of it and/or the corrective actions which you had
said you would take but have not yet taken.

(In fact, I would argue that you were already obligated to share at least the
substance of the discussion  with the other author, both as part of your
commitment to me as well it being necessiary for intellectual progress.)

As you say, 'we are all here trying to learn about this new amazing
thing called Bitcoin'; and I'm not embarrassed to error towards doing
that and aiding others in doing so, but at the same time I am sorry
to have done so in a way which caused you some injury.

In any case, your prior proposed corrective actions seemed sufficient to me.

It surprises me, greatly, that you are failing to see the extreme
practicality of what I described to you, and that it does not meaningfully
diminish miner control of transaction selection-- but even without it your
remark that the proportionality could be arbitrarily small (Rather than
0, as I argue) is an adequate correction to your work, in my view.

I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero.

Cheers,

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010744.html




TL;DR:

Peter R be like:

"I will carry on my verbal diarrhea until gavin and hearn give me a popsicle.."


Gmax:

"I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero."




lmao

Have you read the whole email exhange? I can't believe Peter would bring that up, this is one of the worst case of self-exposing I've seen on the internet  :D


no where is it? altho i cant be bothered reading more of his utter squeaking garbage.

but you can link it for the people here ^^


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 01:16:04 AM
Gmaxwell did the thankless task of debunking Peter R here:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010744.html

TL;DR:

Peter R be like:

"I will carry on my verbal diarrhea until gavin and hearn give me a popsicle.."


Gmax:

"I believe my time would be better spent actually _implementing_ improved
relaying described (and describe what was implemented) than continue
a purely academic debate with you over the (IMO) inconsequential difference
between epsilon and zero."




lmao

Have you read the whole email exhange? I can't believe Peter would bring that up, this is one of the worst case of self-exposing I've seen on the internet  :D


no where is it? altho i cant be bothered reading more of his utter squeaking garbage.

but you can link it for the people here ^^

http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3

Quote
How could you have written at such length and complexity but ignoring the simple expident miners have of simply centeralizing their operation around larger pools to lower their costs-- an activity they previously performed, in practice, not just theory (which was walked back by handing them more efficient relay mechenisms) and which is simple, easy, and which reduces those marginal costs to 0 at the limit (e.g. all miners served off a particular host) --- after I specifically called you out on this previously?   Doubly so when your analysis gives provides a framework for analyizing the profitibility of moving from one point on that income tradeoff graph to another (e.g. the lost income from failing to centeralize)....


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: johnyj on September 03, 2015, 02:19:39 AM


 You are basically proving that you have the same mindset as Gavin: The smartest should be the king and rule others. Unfortunately, people vote with their foot when they feel that you are smarter  ;D


From what I've observed, Gavin doesn't have that attitude at all.  That's why he stepped down from being the lead developer.
Actions speak louder than words.  If he was still "ruling", he would have already implemented Bip 101.   

If the following statement is true then it is not as bright as you described

"In the absence of institutions capable of implementing clear standards, it’s plain that Andresen and Hearn decided to take matters into their own hands. XT is above all a path toward establishing new leadership. I asked Andresen whether, if XT were to achieve full acceptance, he would then include all the earlier Bitcoin core devs in the new XT team. He replied that “[XT] will have a different set of developers. Part of the reason for forking is to have a clear decision-making process for the software development.”

http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/inside-the-fight-over-bitcoins-future


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: tl121 on September 03, 2015, 02:30:16 AM
By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: RoadTrain on September 03, 2015, 08:36:10 AM
By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: S4VV4S on September 03, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.

Unless you 're an ASIC manufacturer, or a huge fan of the sport/hobbie (and can afford to of course),
then SOLO mining is a thing of the past of where we get to tell other people that: I remeber once I used to solo-mine....

It's like the internet (in my case).
One day I will be able to tell my grand kids that I am older than the internet.
That would blow their minds.... :o :o :o


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 09:22:30 AM
By that logic, you're going to be multiples slower than with TOR vs non-TOR, regardless of the blocksize.
No. With higher blocksizes, disadvantage of TOR mining increases.

It is possible to run a mining rig over TOR to a node that can be a mining pool or solo mining pool.  The bandwidth required over TOR is minimal because of the design of the Stratum protocol.  The blocksize can be small or large, as determined by the full node and your mining rig(s).  The bandwidth required between your site and the mining pool is independent of block size and independent of your hash rate, or even number of mining rigs if you use a local stratum proxy.

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.

Unless you 're an ASIC manufacturer, or a huge fan of the sport/hobbie (and can afford to of course),
then SOLO mining is a thing of the past of where we get to tell other people that: I remeber once I used to solo-mine....

This I agree with


Title: Re: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase?
Post by: tl121 on September 04, 2015, 02:59:33 PM

Yes, that's a legitimate use-case. I honestly have been talking about solo-mining, which anyway seems to be marginal nowadays.

Marginal, yes.  However, easy and very profitable if you are lucky.  Thank you, solo.ckpool.com (http://solo.ckpool.com).     :)