Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin core will disappear in 1-2 months. What will happen with your coins? They will have NO value. The miners and exchangers will make the change overnight. :)

The big miners along with few exchangers (Bitstamp, Coinbase, BTC China, OKcoin = same shit) will switch it to Bitcoin Classic.

BitFury CIO Alex Petrov

""If the Bitcoin Core team doesn’t deliver [a solution] in time, we should force the process and that’s why we’re supporting classic. It’s not the best way, it’s painful, but we should do it.""

"It will be not easy to implement, but we can do it one month. This is why we are supporting Bitcoin Classic."



http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miners-bitcoin-classic-scaling-debate-evolves/


So, prepare for the worst.

Stop the FUD! Core wins or Classic, end users will remain unaffected. Because user's coins will be spendable on both chain. In fact, if both chain can hold the price for some time, users can get double value of their coins.

who said that? :)) if would be so easy, the change would have been made by now. Stop the bullshit and go to Coindesk & Co to pay you the "salary" for spreading nonsenses

Your thread title is misleading and this is FUD. Neither Core nor Classic can deploy their 'solution' within 1-2 months. Both have presented solutions, it is segwit vs 2 MB blocks.

---

---

I advise you to change the title.

Please read the article.

i wish gavin would not have lobbied exchanges or miners first. as that is a sign to force it before consensus.. though everyone seems to want 2mb.. and dont want to wait a year for blockstream to move their asses.. there should atleast be a push to get user adoption of the 2mb first.. before forcing it definetly not delaying user adoption either.

i think users should have 2mb rule set not because it is going to cause 1.99mb blocks to magically appear.. but as a buffer to be prepared for it.
to relax that if just 2 miners allow >1mb blocks.. there attempts would orphan when other miners who dont accept >1mb wont have the >1mb in the headers.
so its not like the 2 miners would donimate. and take over.. they will still be limited to the consensus of the other miners rules of acceptance.
EG
https://i.imgur.com/QZD5Qk5.gif


personally id prefer a dialog box for noobs to manually change it when the time arises that all the miners are ready, that way there isnt an onslaught of needing to panic download updates and instead they just change the setting when required.
https://i.imgur.com/cGt2eL5.jpg

it also would allow users to be more independent because they are in control of their decentralized node rather than relying on the ethics of a certain bandcamp

Making Sense of Bitcoin's Divisive Block Size Debate

**Maybe this article will help some people

"Consensus is hard."

Issued by developer Peter Todd, the statement does much to sum up the state of debate in the bitcoin community, the loose term for the sprawling network of users, miners, node operators, global investors, hobbyists and CEOs who have an interest in the future of bitcoin, an open-source software project responsible for managing $5.7bn in value.

While prone to controversy, the bitcoin community is in the midst of one of its biggest debates yet, one compounded by a high-profile article that, while presenting a compelling character portrait of a prominent community member, has lead to a wave of coverage that has colored public perception on a highly complex and divisive issue.

Depending on which media outlet you prefer, bitcoin is either "failing", in the process of "breaking up" or has "failed" already

However, the headlines draw not from any actual observation about the network’s performance, but on mounting disagreement over what bitcoin was intended to be, how it was performing against this ideal and the steps the industry can take to achieve a unified path forward.

The problem is that not everyone in the industry sees the bitcoin network in the same terms.

Indeed, attempts to characterize the argument often lead to a series of extended qualifications. Though widely known as the "block size debate", there is by no means agreement in the bitcoin community that bitcoin needs to change the size of the network's data blocks in order to achieve a more scalable platform.

There have even emerged solutions to the debate that do not involve changing the block size at all. Far from fringe opinions, such an idea has been put forward by members of Bitcoin Core, the bitcoin network’s everyday development team.

In the wake of what is the latest popular mischaracterization of events in the industry, community members are increasingly taking to blogs to discuss the state of the network and their views on the path ahead.

Without near universal approval of how the network should operate, bitcoin risks dividing into separate networks with divergent transaction histories. In turn, this would undermine the overall value of the network and affect compatibility between users.

As a sign of the divide, BitGo co-founder CTO Ben Davenport in a recent Medium post even went so far as to extrapolate how the bitcoin network could deal with two competing blockchains used by different parts of the community and with different prices for bitcoin on those ledgers.

In an attempt to add clarity for those following the debate, we’ve compiled a list of the many questions the community is now seeking to inform and answer.

Has bitcoin failed?

Perhaps the most contentious claim issued by ex-bitcoin developer Mike Hearn, the immediate answer to this question is no. Transactions continue to be processed on the bitcoin network and at press time, 148 1MB blocks of transaction data had been processed by bitcoin’s distributed mining ecosystem over the last 24 hours.

The idea that the media response to the incident betrayed a lack of knowledge about the technology was widely acknowledged, most directly by interested venture capitalists.

Adam Draper, CEO of the startup accelerator Boost VC, for example, noted that bitcoin’s current issues could be viewed as a product of its success. Since it was founded, Boost has invested in more than 50 industry firms, including Fold, Mirror and Zapchain.

If the bitcoin network needs the capacity to handle more transactions, Draper reasoned, it’s proof that the experimental transactions protocol is growing, not dying.

Draper wrote:

"Most of Mike [Hearn]’s problems stem from there being excess demand of the network, not too little, which in the world of startups and technology, I would summarize as, ‘champagne problems.’ The network has too many people who want to transact on it, and it cannot keep up on the demand so it doesn’t clear 100% of transactions perfectly. This is what happens with new technology, and this is what drives innovation."

Draper also pointed to the growing institutional interest in the technology as a sign it is becoming better understood. “Bitcoin has been pronounced dead 89 times, I don’t think this will be the last time people believe it is the end,” he continued.

Elsewhere, Union Square Ventures partner Fred Wilson penned a blog post in which he defended the network as one that still features a “number of well-funded companies” and that has attracted "significant venture capital interest".

"The competition between these various companies and their visions has played a part in the stalemate," he wrote, noting that while the debate is heated, most of its participants are aligned to see the network succeed.

He added:

“These companies have a lot to gain or lose if Bitcoin survives or fails. So I expect that there will be some rationality, brought on by capitalist behavior, that will emerge or maybe is already emerging."

What is bitcoin’s big vision?

Given the number of stakeholders in the bitcoin network, there also remains a variety of opinions on how the technology should be developed.

“In my simple mind I liken it to this. Should bitcoin be gold or should bitcoin be Visa?” Wilson wrote.

Here again, the differing interests in bitcoin are divided.

Many startups, for example, built their companies (and raised money) on the idea that bitcoin would be a free platform for financial services, despite the fact that sending data on the network has always had an implicit cost.

Of course, the question of cost isn’t whether bitcoin should be free or not, securing a transaction against the bitcoin blockchain costs a fee regardless. At issue is which stakeholders should pay for this fee.

In his post for Medium, Valery Vavilov, CEO of bitcoin mining giant BitFury argues that bitcoin users who want to have their transactions noted in the blockchain need to reimburse miners for the computing power they expend to perform this action.

"The blockchain is secured with an enormous amount of computing power, and transaction fees are an important incentive to keep contributing that power," Vavilov wrote.

Still, he argued other technical solutions could cut costs for consumers by reducing their need to post payments to the blockchain.

"Just like with instant payments, expensive on-chain bitcoin transactions do not mean that one cannot use bitcoin for cheap value transfer. Overlay networks, such as Lightning and sidechains, can successfully deal with this challenge," Vavilov said.

This idea is in itself contentious as there remains disagreement as to whether a significant part of the network’s value proposition derives from the idea users interact with the blockchain directly, not a third party as in traditional payment systems.

As noted by independent blogger Beautyon wrote recently, how this cost is paid and how high it is set will have ramifications.

“If however it costs a dollar to spend a dollar, no one will use bitcoin to send a dollar. They will use it to send $100 because that is still cheaper than Western Union,” the post argued.

How centralized should bitcoin be?

Though this has emerged as a debated point, for a sizeable amount of bitcoin users, a key part of the network’s value proposition is that it is decentralized.

By spreading out transaction verification across a number of unknown miners, they argue that users are free from the censorship of platforms like Visa or MasterCard, which can now arbitrarily deny service.

As such, those who are in favor of decentralization, generally want to see all aspects of the network maintain low barriers to entry.

This development is perhaps most pronounced in the mining sector where an industrial arms race to assemble computing power has resulted in a relatively small number of participants in this process, at least compared to the network’s early days when anyone with a home computer could mine bitcoins.

A representative of the industrial miners, Vavilov argued that bitcoin is not “a fancy replacement for PayPal or Visa”, contending that its decentralized qualities provide "permissionless entry for users and developers", key components, he believes, to its goal of becoming an open platform.

He added that, regardless of the number of miners, most bitcoin nodes, which are responsible for maintaining complete copies of bitcoin’s transaction ledger, remain outside of the control of major miners.

The subject of the number of the balance between miners and nodes on the network was also discussed in a post by Brian Armstrong, CEO of bitcoin services firm Coinbase.

Armstrong wrote that he does not have “dire concerns” about the centralization of mining, as this could be offset by the number of nodes.

However, here he noted the size of the blockchain nodes hold would expand if the block size is increased, increasing the cost burden on those running nodes.

"So the block size doubled and the number of full nodes fell by 6%. Can we use this as a proxy for what will happen if we raise the block size more? Maybe,” Armstrong wrote.

He went on to provide a “rough” analysis for how a size increase might affect this aspect of the network.

Do scaling solutions need a block size change?

Another question with a relatively straightforward answer, members of the Bitcoin Core development team are openly advocating that more transaction capacity be added without immediately altering the size of data blocks on the blockchain.

At Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong, Blockstream co-founder and developer Pieter Wiulle introduced a proposal called Segregated Witness that would alter how the network stores transaction signatures.

“What is proposed is a soft-fork that increases bitcoin's scalability and capacity by reorganizing data in blocks to handle the signatures separately, and in doing so takes them outside the scope of the current block size limit,” Blockstream's Greg Maxwell wrote last December.

As opposed to a hard fork, which would create two incompatible versions of the software, a soft fork would allow bitcoin users to continue using older software versions until they upgrade.

As explained by BitGo’s Davenport, the view of Segregated Witness proponents is that a soft fork of the network would be safer than a hard fork, which could split the network into two divergent blockchains.

He wrote:

“The Bitcoin Core team believes doing a hard fork at the present time is needlessly risky, and is instead pursuing SegWit via a soft fork for a similar sized potential gain in throughput."

Developer Peter Todd has explained that he favors a soft fork as it would add rules to the protocol, rather than removing them. In addition, he notes that “modern bitcoin”, a term used to describe the more mature network, has “never done an intentional hard fork”.

“[When a hard fork starts], the blocks from miners adopting the fork are considered invalid by the those who haven’t adopted, because the blocks violate existing rules. So the non-adopting miners build on each others blocks, creating two separate chains,” he wrote.

Elsewhere, he sought to dismiss criticisms that soft forks are dangerous, needlessly complex and undemocratic.

One of the major problems about Segregated Witness, however, may be the lack of communication and its inability to solve the political problem of “fixing the block size issue”.

Developer Peter Todd called this one of the more interesting aspects of the discussion, noting the views of Bitcoin Core’s Jeff Garzik

“His view is we must do a hard fork to show it’s possible. But, why do you want to show it’s possible? Because we’re going to do another. There’s no clear criteria at what point do you stop scaling the limits,” Todd told CoinDesk.

Is a soft fork the best solution?

But while Todd calls soft forks “one of the best tools” that developers have to upgrade the protocol, even this view has attracted its share of detractors.

One effort that has sprung up amidst the wake of Hearn’s post is Bitcoin Classic, which seeks an immediate hard fork that would increase the capacity of the network to 2MB.

The development effort has already received nods of approval from prominent industry firms including mining outlets like BitFury and KnCMiner and consumer services like Coinbase and Circle.

Further, Bitcoin Not Bombs author Chris Pacia has put forth a notable technical criticism to this view.

“I believe that conventional wisdom is wrong,” he wrote in a piece that argued soft forks have not always gone off without difficulty.

How should bitcoin be governed?

Still, there remains the belief that bitcoin’s issue aren’t technical but social.

Pacia suggested that a soft fork would be a governance issue given that “just a few developers and mining pool operators” would effectively be able to determine how the protocol is changed.

But hard forks are not without a governing component.

Davenport along with BitPay CEO Stephen Pair have said they believe that the choice is ultimately up to the miners, who must devote computing power to a fork in bitcoin blockchain. However, Davenport noted that it’s not clear who miners should listen to as they make their decision.

“How are they meant to make such a decision? Should they listen to the developers? to people on Reddit? To the big companies?” Davenport asked.

For his part, Vavilov rejected the idea that bitcoin users should all run nodes, and therefore, all be able to vote on the network's course of action.

"The pipe dream of some in the Bitcoin community is to govern the system by having ordinary users vote for changes by adopting the corresponding full node software. This approach is not only impractical, it is also not desirable," he wrote.

Much of the debate, however, seems to be a byproduct of the lack of a central decision-maker in the debate.

As evidenced at Scaling Bitcoin, decisions proved complex given that miners wanted to follow the recommendations of the development community, while developers sought to avoid pulling the trigger for fear of the repercussions of being labeled as the entity that could enact decisions on the network.

Still, there are signs this concern has been widely interpreted as a sign that Bitcoin Core lacks leadership.

The idea that a change in core development governance would be forthcoming was put forward by Fred Wilson.

“I personally believe we will see a fork accepted by the mining community at some point this year. And that will come with a new set of core developers and some governance about how decisions are made among that core developer team,” he wrote.

Even Todd, a member of Bitcoin Core by association, acknowledged that bitcoin’s developers would need to treat the ongoing debate as a learning experience, adding:

“I get the impression that a lot of this stems from very poor communication between bitcoin core and the rest of the community.”

Gavin works for Coinbase. So, it's a PAID lobby. Coinbase works for investors(we know who they are). The investors wants to recover the investments asap. How can they do that? By having more control over BTC.

Let's not forget that the Coinbase's investors are the same as the Bitstamp investors. :)

OP post gave me cancer, it does not matter if they hard fork for classic unlimtied or anything else, your coins will always be one, there is not "altcoin fork here"

besides they specifically said that they do not intend to switch but whatever...

Well, you can't blame them?

The "small" miners and Core providing a solution will -never- work!
Everybody just operates what is good for them, not for the Blockchain.

I'd rather see these BIG Boys coming with a solution, because the community and
Core has lacked so far. And it's going on to long now.
Let them force/push a solution, the community had there chance and has failed.
Blame yourself, there might come in a solution witch won't be liked by everybody
but when Bitfury, Antminer, KNC, XAPO, Coinbase, etc agree, I'm fine with that.

What if this means it will be more centralized instead of complete decentralized?
Well, maybe it isn't that bad, I don't thrust the Bitcoin community and Core to
come up with solutions. What if the Blockchain grows to a Marketcap. of 100 Billion.
Do you think I gave this in thrust of a Community? Who can't make solution now?
No, I don't mind having Bitfury, Antiminer, KNC, XAPO, Coinbase, etc standing
behind and help leading the way.

These "things' can't be handled by the Miner Mass, only a small group leading the way.
And Core is lacking so far!

if wallet changes it doesn't means whole blockchain changes, our coins and transaction info is stored in blockchain not in bitcoin core wallet, its the worst FUD i have seen ever

I never understood exactly what this was about because I don't have the knowledge. Basically bitcoin needs a change and there are 2 solutions presented, right? What is the big difference between the two and why all the hate and rage?

let's not forget that those who support Bitcoin Classic where behind Bitcoin XT.

Coinbase &Co(their investors) are behind of this shit. They want more centralization, more control. The small miners will disappear once Bitcoin Classic will be in place.What kind of "decentralization" is that? :)

I would rather use PerfectMoney.com. I know that that it's a centralized e-currency, it has anonymity and that's it...Why should I use Coinbase,Bitstamp(those 2 have the same investors behind), Gavin(works for Coinbase), BTC China (CEO's brother, Charles Lee created Litecoin. He works for Coinbase) and Roger Ver's e-currency?

The last one said "I think all the people behind Silk Road are heroes, and the police, who want to lock these people up because they want to put something in their body, are the bad guys."  .

Tell that to the families of which sons are in coma or dead because of drugs, you moron.

These people want to rule the Bitcoin.

mayax like some other people has said, change the tittle, this is nothing but speculative FUD.
You don't have conclusive proof of this happening, therefore you aren't doing a good job with such a tittle. Bitcoin Classic will disappear like useless trojan it is, just like XT. The scaling roadmap of the people that actually have talent (Core devs) will continue.

The miners said so. It is NOT my conclusion.

I don't care about Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Core is already a classic! Call it a different name and try to promote it but we won't buy. I'm sticking to my program, never think of changing it.

Educate yourself.

you will care when your business will be down once Classic will become a reality. then, it will be too late to do something....

Honestly speaking there was news on twitter few days ago about Chinese miners planning to stick with Bitcoin core and it was a top post on the Bitcoin sub reddit. Assuming that this is the case with the majority of the Bitcoin miners, I feel sticking to Bitcoin core makes perfect sense, and also as mentioned by Peter Todd.

What are you talking about, the average user will just upgrade to the new bitcoin qt and thats it done they wont even care about what happens in the back ground, you absolute arse.   ::)

Ok, then use perfectmoney.  Nobody is stopping you.

buh-bye.

Bitcoin miners will go with Bitcoin Classic. They just don't want to spread panic for now... That's all.

I have. The ignorance here is high especially in the one who wants to do a hard fork in 1 month.

The article said so; title is still somewhat misleading.

The miners can pull off the hard fork pretty quickly if they want to abandon most merchants, services and users. Classic is not a solution but rather a power grab. Classic does not have a long term plan nor good developers. Even if it does succeed, this discussion will repeat itself in 2017.

They won't if they have any common sense.

Can you back this up with a list of merchants/exchanges who will not go with Classic? (links plz)

This paranoid atmosphere is healthy  ;D

Do you have a list of every merchant (there are thousands) that will update to Classic in a 30 day time frame? You don't. I can't create that list either. Until someone states that they are willing to switch, it is reasonable to assume that they won't (or won't in time).

Adapt or perish. That's the way life works. Ask Charles Darwin.

You are the one making an assertion, the onus is on you to back it with some evidence.
Had I said "all merchants and users support Classic," asking me for a list would have been justified.
I'll assume you have no evidence to back your claim, and are just FUDding.

People make themselves heard only if and when they care about an issue. When they don't care what happens, they don't say anything -- which is what's happening now. Miners care -- they voiced their opinion. Merchants/exchanges don't care, so no need to compile lists "of every merchant."
Had their multi-million-dollar businesses been threatened by the potentiality of a fork, I'm certain they would have made their concerns known.

Classic is not the next step, it is a power grab.

Evidence of absence. You don't have a list that proves the overwhelming support for Classic, thus it does not exist.

Similarly to when some said they'd back XT until they didn't?

You talking about me??

I never claimed overwhelming support for Classic by businesses. I merely pointed out that they do not care.
here, I'll post it again:
Are you suggesting that they may change their minds? Different topic, but hey, possible :- Especially with folks like Luke Jr. threatening them with fresh PoW.
 :D

The problem is not that some people are in power, the probems begin when there is no possibility to keep in check those in power. Core folks wants their power to be uncontested, calling a fork attempt irresponsible, whereas Classic folks should always welcome challenges to their implementation.

Competition in power is healthy. It makes no sense to say "we should let the power in the hands of those who currently have it because other people want the power and wanting the power is bad".

Which means that my point still stands. One month is a small update window and a it is possible that a good number of businesses stay on the wrong chain for some time.

Until they are all running Classic, it is all just talk. They could change their mind anytime. Luke-Jr didn't threaten anyone, he just made a proposal. Anyone can make one.

Some people believe that Classic will be more democratic because of 'consider.it'. Nice joke. Classic doesn't even have a proper development team, that is very irresponsible (singular example).

We shouldn't care whether Classic is democratic or not, what is important is the possibility of hard forking away from Classic if they end up abusing their power.

Which point is that? That people will be left stranded because it takes a month to download what amounts to a software update?
Either your connection is horribly slow, or I'm forced to assume you're just FUDding.
Of course it's just talk, that's what we're doing. If you feel that they're being disingenuous, why call them ignorant? Just call them liars.

the r/btc subreddit bangs on and on like this all day

only about 10k subs on there, compared to about 170k on r/Bitcoin though...

looks like they're doing some overtime here

Actual BTC are not in risk of dissappearing as they can fit in 2 MB blocks. Users are in a comfortable place IMO as they can choose whatever they like once it is developed, without risking their coins beforehand.

I take the opposite opinion of you.

I think it is reasonable to assume that most merchants who are running a full node
will switch in time, (regardless of whether or not they state they are willing to switch.)

They will follow the miners and see that 2MB is not only reasonable, it is long overdue.

Anyway, I really question what percentage of merchants are really running their own full nodes.

If the bitcoin classic come out in march before Core, and most people use that one. bitcoin will survive on that chain. For the people with their money in their own wallet, they will not lose money.

You're joking right? If you think that everyone is in the position to upgrade or is aware of the current situation then we have no reasons to talk about. Here's a small example and I'll leave it at that:
Even deploying soft forks takes time, with hard forks it is much worse.

Not only is it not overdue, it is very irrational.

People with the delusion of knowledge never seem to stop.

---

---

It was just a simple example. Not willing to asses the situation objectively means that you're either irrational or a Classic shill.

In teh hospital, incommunicado for a month? And your dice site is on autopilot? It runs itself?
Frankly, sounds like something I should be reading in Scam Accusations, and laughing my ass off.
And no one tells you? Because, presumably, no one uses it?

Let's see... An unatended dice site loses a few days' worth of revenues, or I give up on Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System...
It's a toughy, I'll grant you that...

jk, not tough at all. Pay more attention to your shitty gambling site. Not my fault you're sick/lazy, this isn't some Nanny State commie kindergarten, where everything stops to let the slowest/weakest catch up. Buck up, Bucko. :)

Lauda Dice :D

hard forking a change to solve a problem that doesn't exist in a pointless rush on the say so of a corporate lobby when a superior soft forked development that facilitates deeper progress for the project as a whole is imminent simply doesn't compute


here's andreas on segwit (LTB podcast) - first half is blocksize, 2nd half goes deeper

https://soundcloud.com/mindtomatter/ltb-e277-separating-signatures-with-segregated-witness




thinking back, it's been down from gavin's lofty 20MB, to the insidious XT 8MB (to start), now this 2MB 'classic' load of nothing.

driven down to 2MB and digging in - like a pushy salesman's foot in the door...

Can someone explain the difference between the atmosphere at Reddit vs BitcoinTalk.  Are you suggesting that r/Bitcoin is slanted to Classic and Bitcointalk is Core?  There is a process to learning all of this  :o

What is wrong with Bitcoin Core? I am new here so..

currently blocks are limited to 1MB so the network can only handle 3-7 transactions per second.

They are owned by Blockstream™.


This is the truth whether anyone wants to believe it or not. Gavin is a paid puppet that works for the puppet masters (we know who they are) writing the paychecks.

Facts for N00bs: No one is owned by anyone. Blockstream was founded by Greg and Adam. Gavin doesn't work for Coinbase but at MIT. Microguy has a goat farm.

Gavin was hired as an adviser to Coinbase in 2013.  When did that change?

Your core coins are now being converted to cosbycoins.   1....    2....     

I stand slightly corrected.

No. Both are run by Theymos who is a core fan. For some reason much more open discussion is permitted here than on reddit. Dunno why.

Anyone can start a new sub on reddit so more toys are thrown out of prams there.

It was not changed. It's still paid. It's not something bad to be paid and to earn a lot of money. It's OK but you cannot say after that , you are neutral :)

But Microguy's goats tell him what to say. True story.




J/k Microguy. Keep it real home-slice. :)

If bitcoin classic comes out in March, people will only switch to it if they have a reason.

Not that many do. I don't. And I actually really like Gavin.

I stand corrected. It does look like the alert-key holding, coinbase loving, Satoshi runneroffer, XT/Classic traitoring, Gigibyte-block-making 'developer' is winning widespread praise from his peers for his outstanding loyalty, honesty, and innovative coding genius!! :P

~~

http://puu.sh/mHncc/6c331d0c10.png (https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/691075744278024192)

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/691075744278024192



http://puu.sh/mHnfg/7256a4db03.png (https://twitter.com/saifedean/status/691034309780729856)

https://twitter.com/saifedean/status/691034309780729856



http://puu.sh/mHnlG/ff70d68dff.png (https://twitter.com/DecentOS/status/691070160132816897)

https://twitter.com/DecentOS/status/691070160132816897



http://puu.sh/mHnqK/3ff8d9fe6e.png (https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/691069235389448192)

https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/691069235389448192



http://puu.sh/mHpp2/3a3ee1a8b9.png (https://twitter.com/davoutplantaire/status/690810640517193728)

https://twitter.com/davoutplantaire/status/690810640517193728


http://puu.sh/mHq83/1dd29e06d6.png (https://twitter.com/Rolmopz/status/690863448612298752)

https://twitter.com/Rolmopz/status/690863448612298752


~~

These are honestly like the first few tweets I found. Got tried of copying and pasting.  

you're just cherry picking negativity.

For a more meaningful discussion involving both Gavin and Peter...

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/426nee/ambitious_protocol_limits/

That's a hell of a lot of cherries!  :)

Except for Peter Todd, who are these other clowns?

Clowns?

Saifedean Ammous is an economics professor: http://sb.lau.edu.lb/departments/economics/dr-saifedean-ammous.php

David Francois is the CTO of European exchange Paymium: https://paymium.com/

What does have to do with Bitcoin security?

I'm sorry you can't come to grips with reality. These tweets are all from the last 24 hours.

You probably don't want me to go back 3 or 4 days. :-*

it's a fighting for power. who to control the Bitcoin market. :)

that's it. it seems that Bitcoin was not made to be a payment system :)

It is a payment system. When the block size increases to 2MB in the short term, there will be less congestion.

My thoughts exactly.

The bitcoin classic fork is an irresponsible attempt to seize power in the bitcoin world. It will fail.

Even if it is the right technical approach, they are going about it in the completely wrong way.

However it is not the right technical approach. SegWit is a much better approach to the TPM issue, and is in proper testing in the bitcoin-core test releases right now.

Stay away from bitcoin-classic.

I like Gavin but this attempt of his shows he has lost touch with reality and more importantly, lost touch with the community.

Bitcoin Classic is already dead, I don't understand how some people are still acting as if they are going to hardfork:

http://www.coinfox.info/news/4781-bitcoin-classic-rejected-for-the-sake-of-segwit

Too bad the second trojan horse attempt didn't work. I wonder what the next name will be for Gavincoin 3.0. Bitcoin Unleashed? Sounds pretty good to me.

Yo Girlfriend, Classic's bangin'!

http://s11.postimg.org/ywxmfum43/Capture.png

https://coin.dance/nodes

I'm getting bored by those node proof images.
Nodes dont mean much as one can fire up amazon web services and launch 1000 nodes of bitcoin XT / classic or core for a nominal fee.
We all here know this.
Hashing power is what counts!

Admitting that node count is irrelevant kills the biggest argument against increasing the blocksize :-\

The number of nodes over a longer period of time is relevant. Node count as a metric used for 'debating' is irrelevant. You can't properly measure the actual number of nodes and the number can be faked. Your attempts at trolling won't work.

Exactly; Classic is already dead. However, their technical approach is actually among the worst proposed so far. People who are "contributing" (copy-paste code from Core) to Classic were not actively developing lately either.

Nonsense. Number of non-mining nodes (call them what they are: wallets) is irrelevant to Bitcoin security. It doesn't reduce centralization, only serves to obfuscate it.

0 classic blocks have been mined.  Only way classic is adopted at this point is if core drags their feet and every block is full with huge delays for confirmations.

Completely wrong. This implies that the entire network could be comprised of SPV nodes that trust a small, centralized group (miners) regarding the validity of the blockchain. That is not a trustless system at all. It means that miners can level endless attacks on the entire userbase, from double-spending to transaction censorship. This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin.

Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that. The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks). Past that, miners are presumed not to be honest (they have clear incentives to be dishonest), and will steal everything they can. Non-mining nodes are therefore essential to keeping miners honest, by making it too expensive or difficult to mount certain attacks against the userbase.


By definition, nodes reduce centralization. Since every node must receive and process every transaction in every block, they are the "peers" in the p2p network. They are what gives meaning to the word "decentralization." If miners (a much more centralized group than non-mining nodes) control all nodes, then the entire userbase is at the mercy of a group that can collude against them.

That the number of nodes, or a given proportion of nodes, can be obfuscated in the short term has nothing to do with that. It doesn't matter that you can't have a clear picture of the node software people are running, nor of their intentions....what matters is that without peers, bitcoin becomes a network based on trust.

More nonsense, it doesn't. Am assuming that your inference process works something like this:
  1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.
  2. I disagree, and point out that the padlocks littering our lawn add nothing to our security.
  3. From this, you infer that I'm saying that our house is secure without those padlocks.
That's flawed reasoning. I've never suggested that Bitcoin is either "a trustless system" or secure, merely that non-mining nodes don't *add* anything to security.

Yes, they could, if that happens to be in their calculated best interest. Non-mining nodes (wallets) prevent this only as far as being ...you guessed it, wallets. You can rely on your wallet for making sure the correct ruleset is being followed. If you chose to rely on other_nodes (SPV wallet), or other people (web wallet), that's called trust.

Your level of participation/("say") in Bitcoin is proportional to your hashrate. The only voice BTC holders have is the market: You may [try to] sell when things don't go your way. Again, running non-mining nodes offers you nothing above verifying transactions for yourself (again, used as your wallet).
Yes, something that's often glossed over. But non-mining nodes are impotent -- if only [for the sake of simplifying the argument] because "bad," competing nodes could be trivially/inexpensively created.
But how do you keep missing something which seems so self-evident: non-mining nodes could be created by anyone, including the miners they're meant to keep in check.
By definition of ...what?
Ahh, I see, on a purely technical level. So if I run 5000 nodes, I become 1/2 the userbase & Bitcoin becomes x2 as "decentralized." GG.
But it already is! Gah.

---

Edit, TL;DR: Yes, Bitcoin would be more secure if every wallet was a full node. It would be more secure still if every wallet also hashed. This is not the case, nor is it likely to be. We rely on (trust) multiple middlemen, from BitPay to exchanges, and trust the people we transact with to actually send us something in return for the bits we send them. Number of non-mining nodes is irrelevant.

Anyone reading can see this is a ridiculous analogy. Instead of inventing an irrelevant analogy, try proving the actual statement wrong. If "non-mining nodes [are] irrelevant to Bitcoin security," that implies either that "Bitcoin is secure with only mining nodes" or "Bitcoin is insecure no matter what."

My statement above specifically addresses the former. It is absolutely not secure with only mining nodes. The burden is on you to prove the second statement.


Yes, relying on other nodes = trust. And without non-mining nodes, there are only mining nodes. Hence "miners can level endless attacks on the entire userbase, from double-spending to transaction censorship." You say "other nodes"...but if there are only mining nodes, the userbase, by definition, trusts miners. Hence why the existence of non-mining nodes secures bitcoin: by decentralizing hash power from validating nodes.

You said "non-mining nodes don't *add* anything to security." For individual users: Anyone who transacts with bitcoin without validating their own transactions is insecure and dependent on trust. For the bitcoin system: Without non-mining nodes, miners can level endless attacks on the entire userbase, from double-spending to transaction censorship.

Go ahead and actually prove those statements wrong instead of making a bizarre, irrelevant analogy.


No, the bolded is incorrect. Hash rate is irrelevant without rule enforcement. If miners are the only party enforcing the rules, all users trust miners. My voice is my node. I enforce the rules not only to validate my own transactions but to enforce the rules of the system, helping to prevent miners or other attackers from breaking them.

The more nodes that exist that are enforcing the same rules, the more likely the longest valid blockchain data that you receive from them is accurate. If there are only five validating nodes in the network, it only takes six Sybils to make many attacks on the system easily possible.

Regarding this thinking that miners are the end-all, be-all of bitcoin:


Miners have to contend with the idea that if they cannot reach 100% consensus on a single rule set (and therefore a single blockchain in a chain fork situation) that lack of node consensus will force them to chain fork and therefore choose between two distinct blockchains. A rational miner would probably rather avoid that situation. I continue to enforce the 1MB limit -- as do others -- to force rational miners to tread carefully when considering whether to hard fork without full consensus.


It may be true that spinning up some nodes is trivial -- but mounting a successful Sybil attack may not be so trivial or inexpensive at all. Spinning up nodes for nodecounter.com is very different from being able to successfully attack the system. Non-mining nodes obviously aren't impotent because we are talking about theoretical Sybil attacks, not historical ones. :D


Anyone can spin up some more nodes, including miners. So what? A miner bringing another Classic node online doesn't mean my Core node is going offline.


Every node must receive and process every transaction in every block. That distributes blockchain data to all nodes who enforce the rules, rather than a system where nodes trust a central source.



No, you don't become half the userbase. But you might be a potential Sybil attacker. Give it a try, I say. Go ahead and test bitcoin's level of decentralization, and see if you can attack it. :)


Regarding the bolded: no, it isn't. Not yet, anyway. As a bitcoin user, I don't rely on Bitpay, exchanges or any other third party -- that's only for fiat conversion, which is completely external to the bitcoin system. The faults of "trusting people we transact with" are due to "trusting people we transact with" -- not bitcoin. As I've said and provided evidence for several times, non-mining nodes are very much relevant to the decentralization and security of bitcoin.

Miners will predominantly mine on the fork that users are predominantly using. That's the only way they get a block reward that is actually worth anything.

Of course the full-nodes we run are important and balance out the power.

The analogy is fine. Proving the negative is notoriously hard (often impossible), and yet that's exactly what you're asking of me.

Proving the positive, OTOH (that nodes *do* contribute to security), is a must. For the statement to have a defined, positive truth value, that is (because no proof != false, so you might have an "undefined," see here (https://bitcointalk.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems)).
So it would be much more appropriate for me to ask *you* to prove that nodes contribute to Bitcoin security.
Please do so.

Getting back to my analogy, you are asking me to prove that the padlocks littering the lawn don't contribute to our security. Because, if I'm unable to, they do.
At least, according to you.

I'll even help you to get your proof going. One tack might be to prove that it's economically unsound for the miners to counter "a_node_you_like" with a node of their own.


Explain *how*.
Yes, your own coins are safe if you run a real (full node) wallet, but you do not contribute anything to the network which can't be countered by a VM instance (which could be leased by "bad" miners for a trivial sum).

It doesn't matter how many VM instances run what clients.

What matters is what fork the the coins real people are using are on.

Initially most transactions will probably be on both forks, but as both forks continue to mine, coins will be created in the block rewards that only exist on one fork or the other.

Which node we, the people actually making transactions to buy stuff and accepting transactions to sell stuff, determine which fork has value and thus by which node we choose balance the power of the miners.

What I'm trying to say is if a large percentage of the miners switch to classic but we, the users, stick to core - then those miners will be mining block rewards they can't spend because they will be on a fork that we don't accept as valid.

Thus by running a full client, we get a say in how bitcoin progresses rather than leaving it up to the miners and commercial web wallet companies.

coinbase may like classic but coinbase will have to stick with core if the userbase sticks with core. That's the security we provide.

Nobody is mining with classic. And nobody is switching from core nodes to classic.  Core nodes still at 5k.  All the classic nodes are people bringing new nodes online.  Which isn't bad, but they will shut them down when they see classic isn't getting adopted.

I might not be the best or the most technical for this but it's what I understood. From what I know both classic and core are just the software behind it. The coins are still bitcoins!

It can't really affect the coins no?

Yes because if there is a hard fork, coins mined on one branch will not exist on the other branch. That will create major problems when the block rewards enter circulation.

Well, actual BTC are not in risk of disappearing as they can fit in 2 MB blocks. Users are in a comfortable place IMO as they can choose whatever they like once it is developed, without risking their coins beforehand...

Right. By having *your* full node wallet verify the validity *your* transactions, your transactions don't get confirmed until *your* block (block valid for *your* fork) gets solved. Which is *never* (because the miners aren't solving it, they're solving *their* blocks, which adhere to *their* ruleset, and are acceptable to *their* full nodes wallets). That's if they don't allocate a fraction of their hashpower to mess with your fork.

In the meantime, those who have switched to the miners' fork are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes.
And those who are using thin/web wallets (all but ~4,000 users) are getting their transactions verified every 10 minutes too, because relying on other nodes (most of which are miners' VM nodes, which the miners are running for roughly $7/mo each, or about $28k/mo for 4,000 of them (probably much less because bulk).

Now tell me about how your full node is more than a good wallet, how VM nodes do not matter & enjoy your worthless coins :)

I don't give a rats ass about VMs or how many there are running whatever the hell they want to run.

By running a full node, I choose which branch my transactions happen on. You can call it a fancy wallet - but I don't really care for semantic games, those are usually played by arrogant people who know they don't have a point but are too prideful to admit it.

So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on. When you or anyone sends me coins, it is valid on that fork or it isn't valid.

So when we, the users, run a full nodes - we, the users, decide which fork the block reward has value on - because if the miners decide they like classic (doubtful but hypothetical) and try to force us into it even though we, the users who buy coins, prefer core - then the coins those miners mine will be worthless because they can't sell them to us.

Thus they will mine what we, the people running full nodes, er, I mean fancy wallets continue to use - giving a balance of power because their block rewards are worthless if they can't sell the coins to us.

I agree, there is a balance of power.  Miners can't force users to use a coin they don't want.

But some people like Gregory Maxwell have recently argued the opposite -- that miners can try to coerce users into using a certain coin.

>So by running my fancy wallet, I choose which fork I'm active on.
Sure, you do. Since a very small percentage of the miners will be mining your fork (and the difficulty will not be down-adjusted until [up to] 2016 blocks are solved, so hashpower/difficulty ratio ridiculous, so never), you can now:
1. Tell people how many worthless coins you own.
2. Cry.
3. Cry & tell people how many worthless coins you own.
4. Start telling people about the worthless coins you own, but break down in tears before you can get the words out.
Because one thing you won't be able to do with those coins is use them. Ever.

But yeah, you can chose. Suicidal choice, from a purely utilitarian perspective, but there's more to life than money I guess.
Anyhow I don't judge :)

You don't get it.

I don't want the power to decide which fork wins. That's not security, that would be centralization.

This started because you wanted to know how people running full clients adds security.

It adds security because I don't get to choose, the miners don't get to choose, but a consensus of distributed users RUNNING FULL NODES FOR THEIR FANCY WALLETS gets to choose.

That's where the security from. Decentralization.

When we all use lite clients clients, it isn't decentralized consensus.

This isn't rocket science, it is ridiculous that you need this explained over and over and over again.

Look, Alice, don't get upset. I'm merely explaining to you how things are, not deriding you for wanting them to be different.

Sure, if everybody ran full node, and everyone wanted to stick with Core, Classic wouldn't fly. By definition. Unfortunately for you, at most 4,000 (four thousand) people run Core full nodes. And, even I will admit, Bitcoin has more than 4k users.

And somebody is *already* running 800 core nodes, so clearly not *everyone* supports core.

And, if the miner's do not support Core, you got yourself some dead, Memecoin-level worthless coins. If you want to be a man of principle, that is, and don't mind taking a little hit.
But I bet ya no one'd say nothin' bad 'bout you if you git a hankerin' to turn those worthless coins into money by spending them on a fork that ain't dead.
Heck, nobody even has to know :)

If the miners do not support core but the users do, there will be plenty of miners who do support core  - even if it means some of us break out our depricated USB hubs and USB miners.

What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état.

Even if Classic is the technically superior solution to the problem, if they are successful it will show the world that a small group of people with business interest can take over the bitcoin network and then I fear it is game over for bitcoin. That's the real reason I object to Classic.

If it is the technically correct solution, they should have convinced the core developers. If they couldn't convince the core developers, then maybe it isn't as sound as they think it is.

The reality though is I don't see support for Classic anyway. If the users don't want it, it will fail because the miners only care about money, they will mine where the block reward has user demand. Period. Demand is what drives the price.

...and that is precisely why I object to Core!

I don't want to hijack this topic so I'll try to keep my question short:

If there is a move to Classic that makes up a large majority of the userbase, what does that mean for the average man? Do we just have to transfer our private addresses to the Classic clients, or what?

Truly I do not care what client is used, as I am not really educated enough on this topic to give an informed opinion. I am more interested in spreading the information explaining for other people how they can save their money.

You can do that, no problem. Hopefully you will also still be able to use Core.

Sometimes words fail me. How can ... why do you think Classic... how do you even...

http://s17.postimg.org/u6mbqc9sv/Capture.png

>What we have going on here is an attempted Coup d'état.
No Alice, what we have here is a bunch of entrenched, entitled bitches. Who not only failed to prevent this [100% predictable] fiasco, but have *driven out* the people who tried to keep shit from hitting the fan. The very bitches who are now raping Bitcoin for Blockstream's benefit.

You are just an ass.

Have a nice life.

If there is a hard fork there is big trouble.

User A is on Fork A
User B is on Fork B

User A sends coins to user B but one of the inputs is only valid on Fork A

User B can not retrieve the funds because the transaction is not valid on Fork B and user A can not retrieve the funds either because the transaction is valid on Fork A and user A doesn't have the private key to the address.

That is what will happen if there is a fork and all users don't use the same fork.

Classic is an all or nothing. Either everyone uses it or no one uses it. There is no in-between.

If they fork the blockchain without consensus from the users - it will be hell.

You can't have it both ways.

Based on the several posts you made in this thread, you seem to be arguing both that:

A) Miners won't be able to create a successful fork without consensus from the users.

B) Miners will be able to create a successful fork without consensus from the users (but it will be hell).

I am aware of the different forks and the implications of all the users not agreeing to use the same fork, but I am referring to existing coins right now, whether or not they can be "transferred", per say, to the other blockchain without having to go through a seperate program aside from the client itself.

I assume that classic is basically copying the blockchain in its current state, and thus the Bitcoin transfers are being synced as they occur in the Core blockchain? I can very well be wong, because again I have no idea how this works.

Miners will be able to create a fork, there is no technical reason why they can't.

There's a monetary reason why I believe they won't - namely they want to profit and a bitcoin network where there is no way of knowing if the owner of the address you are paying can retrieve the funds would crash bitcoin and I do not believe they want that.

They won't hard fork the blockchain unless a very large percentage of the users are using the classic client. It would be economic suicide to do so, They can, but I do not believe they are that dumb.

Thus whether or not classic becomes the future of bitcoin is in the hands of the users, not the miners.

Classic can handle the current core blockchain. Running the classic client doesn't require a hard fork.

The hard fork will only happen if some of the miners start creating blocks that classic can handle that core can't.

If the miners never do that, then classic is just another client with no technical reason to use it.

In fact I believe the fork can only happen if a majority of the hashing power starts doing blocks only classic can handle. Otherwise the core branch statistically will always be longer.

Kind of like a 51% attack power grab... only the power grab only works for clients that work with classic blocks. Clients that don't would reject that chain, resulting in the hell of not knowing if the transaction will work or destroy coins.

I believe miners are smart enough to want to avoid that hell.

Could you explain specifically how a decentralized network of nodes is equivalent to "padlocks thrown about on our lawn?" I've explained many times, and provided evidence for how they are the only defense against Sybil attacks (from miners or otherwise).

At this point, the burden is on you to provide at the very least some theoretical basis that bolsters your statement that one could "trivially/inexpensively" render all non-mining nodes "impotent" by running some other nodes, and therefore profitably attack the system, presumably forever or until it is rendered insecure, and bitcoins valueless. You can suggest that one can cheaply bring some nodes online, but that isn't sufficient to prove anything about plausibility and likelihood of an actual attack.

There have been past double-spend attacks by miners, so we know that rational miners will attack nodes if it is profitable to do so. That they have not used Sybil attacks specifically does not prove that it is not (and was not historically) possible to do so, but it certainly does not help your claim that non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the system. If they did nothing -- like padlocks on the lawn -- wouldn't that suggest it was cheap enough to attack them with Sybils?

You need to bring something more to the table than twisted logic to suggest that non-mining nodes are "irrelevant" to the security of the network.


I'm asking that you provide a modicum of evidence, logic, for a statement you made -- i.e. more than just a mere repeated opinion. I'm asking that you refute all of the points I made about how non-mining nodes do contribute to security, rather than deleting them from my quote and neglecting to address them.


Given the theoretical nature, there are limits to the idea of "proof" here, but I've still done a lot to that end in this discussion. At this point, the burden is on you to refute the arguments:







In summation: Nodes enable a decentralized, trustless system to exist in the first place (securing users' funds from centralization failure). They are the system's defense against Sybil attacks (preventing double-spending and censorship attacks) from miners or other attackers. Further, nodes, by self-validating, also decrease the number and scope of attacks on users of the system by eliminating trust-based protocols.


Uh, what? I stated a case for nodes being essential to the system's security. That case does not depend on your ability to argue against it. I'm simply asking you to provide any logical argument or evidence for your claims that nodes are irrelevant to the system's security.

I'm asking that you explain how a decentralized network of nodes is equivalent to padlocks littering the lawn.... if it is, you should be able to refute my claims above. Instead you're setting up a straw man that mischaracterizes everything I said, while ignoring every point I made.

This is what I said:


If you're suggesting that miners attacking non-miners is irrelevant because bitcoin is otherwise insecure anyway, the statement is false prima facie since, from a non-miners' perspective, it is very relevant to the security of their money. It is therefore relevant to the integrity of the system because the system is composed predominantly of non-miners.


There is no such thing as proof in game theory and economics. In any case, for this to be relevant, you need to make the case that this is sufficient to profitably attack the system. Otherwise it's just a meaningless metric.

<-snip->

:(

Lol, that's where the root of your problem lies -- you think that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics," so it's OK to ask me for proof when logic fails you.

No, friend, game theory is "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers." Mathematical models are the very essence of being open to proof, see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof). Sorry 'bout previously bringing Godel into this, assumed our differences were more nuanced. Turns out they're rather basic -- you simply have no clue about the shit you talk about.

So, on one hand, you don’t need to provide any proof that non-mining nodes (or nodes) are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. On the other hand, you suggest that mathematical models make such proof possible. Then, instead of providing any evidence of your argument, you link to an encyclopedia article about “Mathematical proof.” Really compelling.

Several times now you’ve dishonestly used the concept of “proof” to back contradictory claims. It’s simply a red herring you use to disguise the fact that you have no valid argument, never mind providing evidence for it.

And are you really suggesting that humans are now able to mathematically prove what “intelligent rational decision-makers” will do in given situations? Last I heard, our understanding of causal effects in macroeconomics is virtually nil.


Excellent strawman. I merely asked you to provide evidence for your baseless opinions, while pointing out the epistemic limits of “proof” in the context of human actions. The latter was for your benefit. The lone phrase you quoted out of context (from two posts ago) was clarified in my last post:


You’ve only managed a couple fallacious retorts, so you’re not in a position to say when logic has failed anyone. If my logic has indeed failed, simply refute my arguments on a logical basis. I’ve summarized them below. You’ve even suggested that you can indeed prove your case on the basis of mathematical models, which I am excited to see:



I respect that you take a dishonest approach to debate; it’s nothing new.

But even if you could show this to be true (rather than being based on transparent fallacies), you still haven’t begun to make your case that nodes are irrelevant to Bitcoin’s security. You're merely attacking me as a person.

i doubt that all the miners will switch to classic, core seems to be pretty strong still and miners dont seem to want to mine on classic a lot

No. That's retarded. Stop being retarded.
1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security, because stops Evol from getting in.
2. When I object & ask you to explain how, you retort with "so prove to me that garlic is not essential for for our security."
3. I point out that such proof, as is the case for most "prove the negative," would be difficult, if not altogether impossible, and that the burden of proof remains with you.

I go on to suggest that
Claiming that "there's no such thing as proof in game theory and economics" is proof positive that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and are wasting my time.
Please stick to digging ditches & stop wasting my time, madjules007.

inb4 "But holy water": No, stop grasping at straws & keep digging.

So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.

I explained precisely how nodes are essential to network security. You've addressed precisely zero of those arguments. Here is a short summary that includes some of those arguments:


I conceded multiple times that "proof" in the realm of economics is elusive because economic models rely on unprovable assumptions about human actions. I therefore simply asked you to provide any basis at all for your opinions, which you have yet to provide:


I've made a case for how nodes are indeed essential to network security. Your refusal to address that case is not evidence against it. You can claim the burden of proof is on me. But merely claiming that your argument is impossible to prove, then refusing even to form a logical argument to refute mine, does not disprove my arguments, nor does it bolster yours.

So...explain please, with regard to my arguments, how nodes are analogous to "garlands of garlic on our front door." Because that's just a bizarre opinion with no basis that you continually repeat.


Oh? Then state how game theory models are provable, rather than (as usual) stating a baseless opinion and trying to act smart. Explain please, with regard to epistemology, how mathematical models can prove how humans will act. Go ahead and do it. What do "mathematical proofs" have to do with human action under non-repeatable conditions? That game theory employs applied mathematics to map correlations does not say anything about its capacity for proving causality. Economic models are based on tacit, unprovable assumptions about how the world works (e.g. human nature).

If economic models can be proven, why are there no "Economic Laws" (as opposed to "Physical Laws")? Because variables in game theory and economics are tainted by human actions, which are governed by more than one simple variable that can be isolated and repeated in the empirical sense. In physical science, we can isolate variables in repeatable procedures (experiments) to prove cause-and-effect. This is the accepted, rationalist approach. But in economics, there are no "repeatable" conditions -- the conditions are never the same.

Hume on the problem of causality in macroeconomics:
“There can be no demonstrative arguments to prove that those instances, of which we have had no experience, resemble those, of which we have had experience."

Keep on insulting me. I don't mind. That you think that game theory models are "provable" and that randomly linking to a Wikipedia article about "mathematical proofs" makes your case certainly suggests that one of us doesn't know what the fuck we're talking about.

You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy).
I'm attempting to make you understand by trying different analogies. Clearly, it's not working. Because for understanding to take place, the subject must be *capable* of understanding, Which you are not. Or are faking stupidity. Either way, it's starting to try my patience. Your slimy tactic is to add more and more text, most of it copy-pasted, and hoping that your opponent gets bored/frustrated & goes away.
Like, for instance, a frickin' duplicate of this thread, where you wage your war of [feigned?] stupidity & attrition :(

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13915026#msg13915026

And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support >:(

Here's the most common definition of "analogy":


Did you or did you not make a comparison between "nodes", "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" and "garlands of garlic on our front door?" I didn't make those comparisons; you did:


Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.


That's the problem. You've done nothing to establish that your analogies are remotely accurate; you repeat them ad nauseum, but that doesn't make them any more than baseless opinions.

You claim that nodes are irrelevant to network security, yet you ignore all the evidence that they are not. Instead of refuting my arguments, you construct these bizarre analogies with no basis in reality, on the basis of opinion. The fact is that they are completely inaccurate, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.


Right. Instead of debating the points made, you level personal attacks, as usual, without ever once making a substantive argument. The only time I copy-pasted was when you repeatedly stated the burden of proof was on me, while simultaneously ignoring all evidence I provided. So I re-quoted some of it for you, in hopes that you would address it. You, of course, did not. Simply ignoring everything your opponent says is not adequate to declare victory.


...And? I'm happy to mitigate ignorance around here. That both of you state that "nodes are irrelevant to security" as a given, without addressing the mountain of evidence that they are not, does nothing to suggest that it's true.


Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you? 


It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?

^You're good at this. ;D

How do we know what consensus rules the rest of the network is using are?  

The first method is to inspect transactions and blocks that have already been included in the Blockchain and try to determine the rules empirically via abduction.  

Is there another way?

A second method is to assume that the rest of the network is using code that is the same (or similar) to the code that we use for our node, and determine the consensus rules from that code via deduction.  

The first method would have failed during the first halving while the second method would have succeeded.  There was no blockchain evidence that the coinbase reward would suddenly be reduced from 50 BTC to 25 BTC; however, the halving rule was encoded into Satoshi's original Bitcoin code.  

Should blocks greater than 1MB soon be included into the blockchain, the second method would have failed while the first method would have succeeded.  There is little blockchain evidence of a 1 MB limit; however, code going back to the late summer of 2010 contained a rule that specified that blocks shall be no greater than 1 MB.  

Neither method is perfect: we can't be sure that Bitcoin will empirically behave the same in the future as it did in the past, and we also can't know for certain what code is being run by the "rest of the network."  It's a matter of epistemology (https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-and-epistemology-rationalism-versus-empiricism.197/).  

Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain:

Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.


No. You typed shitloads of words, which rarely corresponds to "mount[ing] considerable evidence." This subtle distinction eludes you too, I'm sure.

Edit:

In that case, you disagree with the majority of Core supporters, who feel that one node = one "economic agent" (whateverthefuck that means) & thus nodes become a voice of the "economic majority" (whateverthefuck that means).

As far as reading the white paper, I did. Number of times non-mining-non-wallet nodes mentioned: 0 (zero).

This situation is analogous to banking customers (the bitcoin userbase) depending solely on central banks (miners) to uphold the integrity of the system. It doesn't work in the real world and it won't work in bitcoin.  Non-mining users and miners have competing incentives. Miners are only concerned with profit -- historical attacks (withholding, double-spend, tx censoring) support that. The only checks on miners' incentives to attack other miners or users are 1) other miners (who might control enough computing power to prevent computing power based attacks) and 2) non-mining nodes (who might control enough nodes to prevent Sybil attacks). Past that, miners are presumed not to be honest (they have clear incentives to be dishonest), and will steal everything they can. Non-mining nodes are therefore essential to keeping miners honest, by making it too expensive or difficult to mount certain attacks against the userbase...

Sure, miners' interests != hodlers interests (though this rabbit hole goes too deep for comfort -- all nodes (wallets) mined in satoshi's model. Contrary to Pierre's claims, the white paper makes no mention of non-mining, non-wallet nodes.

My point is not that miners' interests inevitably coincide with those of the hodlers, but that non-mining nodes (which are not being used as a wallet) add nothing to Bitcoin security. Your wallet (as in the only wallet that's truly trustless, one running a full node) checks for *you* that the miners are following your ruleset.

Mostly agree with the caveat that NMN add security for those not running nodes (SPV)

You didn't explain anything; you just insult.  Your analogies are weak and you have no position.

I apologize in advance to anyone reading this however I feel an ad hominem attack is warranted.  Bargainbin, your intelligence is low and you likely suffer from hygiene problems.

That is all.

Dear fucking idiot: your failure to understand may be caused by
a) My failure to explain
b) You being a fucking idiot
I'm betting on the latter.
Now run along and play your vidya.

Just put bargainbin on your ignore list,

He has no interest in intelligent discussion, he only wishes to argue and insult people.

While this discussion continues, number of running Classic nodes shows steady rise - http://xtnodes.com/

This is the major problem with bitcoin. The debate got started years back and till now a decision has not been reached whether switch to classic or not. Certain decision were made without giving priority to the miners, Which needs to be more concerned.

miners will switch to what gives them more stability.

How so? Explain how non-mining nodes are irrelevant to security. Otherwise you have no basis to compare them to garlic garlands or padlocks strewn about the lawn--it's just a baseless opinion.


And what does this have to do with non-mining nodes? You haven't established that (see above). This isn't about garlic.


It may appear to be wordy, since I make an effort to respond to every point my opponent makes. You, on the other hand, respond to precisely zero of the arguments your opponent makes. Then you complain that your opponent uses too many words, as if that was sufficient to refute his arguments.

In other words, you're just talking shit, as usual.


One node is one agent in the network. Could you explain how it isn't? That doesn't mean that one user = one node.

Sources for the latter claim? If anything, I see Core supporters arguing against this "economic majority" idea because it suggests that actors that are completely external to the protocol should have some voice in governing it. But in my view, there is only hash-based proof-of-work (hashpower) and validation of that proof-of-work (nodes).


And what about the constant mention of nodes? Satoshi may have envisioned typical users being able to mine with CPUs, but that doesn't mean that "node" is defined as some arbitrary "unit of hashpower." (Is each CPU worth 4.86 terahashes/second, maybe? More? Less? :D)

What do you think "CPU" in "one-CPU-one-vote" refers to? It necessarily refers to nodes. Nothing suggests that one must be "a miner" to operate a node.

Indeed, the whitepaper suggests that validating nodes -- not "hashpower" -- are responsible for establishing the validity of blocks:

It's true that we don't know about incompatible consensus rules that exist, but simply haven't been broken. For all practical purposes, those are irrelevant. As long as my nodes agree with the network in establishing the currently best blockchain, the purpose of the consensus mechanism has been fulfilled. And as long as we have a single, cohesive ledger extending to the genesis block, we know the consensus rules that are/were hard-coded into the protocol, prima facie.

For example, we know that


If consensus is broken (i.e. the network disagrees on what constitutes the longest, valid chain), we would then need to deduce which consensus rule was violated (by either fork). But as long as consensus remains intact, that is unnecessary, since my nodes agree with the current (and in this case, only) consensus on what constitutes the longest, valid chain.

This is a case where prima facie, it is sensible to assume the consensus rules have not changed unless and until a) we have affirmative knowledge that the consensus rules have changed (i.e. software update, where we can observe the proportion of updated nodes), or b) consensus is broken. Maybe I'm missing something, but anything else seems irrelevant, since it won't affect consensus.

FTFY. If you can't prove to me that garlic garlands are irrelevant to home security, it's just a baseless opinion.


It's called an analogy. If I compare thee to a summer's day, I don't mean to suggest you have 24hrs & that there are 365 of you in a year. Your failure to understand such basics is, partially, what led me to conclude that you're a
Duh.


The problem with attempting to converse with your likes is that (on top of your other failings) you cause the argument to bloom -- instead of limiting yourself to a single point, you create multiple branches, going off on multiple tangents. This could be due to an undisciplined mind -- inability to focus, choosing instead the spray & pray, the shotgun approach, or "throwing spaghetti at the wall & seeing what sticks."
A less generous interpretation is "force the debate into a stalemate by causing it to bloom & become unmanageable/"too much of a bother to continue."
If so, GG.


In that case, it things like Sybil attack are bullshit -- all the nodes participating in the attack are "[valid, legitimate] agent[s ] in the network." A Sybil attack is not an attack, merely Bitcoin functioning as it should. Discouraging "Bitnodes['s] incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running." (https://bitcointalk.org/wiki/Full_node) by Core was also bullshit.
Case closed.


See above.

Why would I need to prove anything about garlic garlands? You haven't established that they are remotely relevant to this discussion.

My claim is that non-mining nodes are essential to network security. I have provided evidence which you refuse to address. You made the claim that non-mining nodes are irrelevant to security. You have presented zero evidence of that.


It's called a baseless analogy, i.e. one you have provided no factual, logical or evidentiary basis for.


Okay. I can also compare "black" to "white" and "night" to "day." That doesn't prove anything. This provides zero evidence for your argument that non-mining nodes are irrelevant to security.


And you round out your complete butchery of logic with an ad hominem. And not even an original one. ::)


So...your opponent makes multiple points, and that justifies you addressing none of them? Right.


Perhaps you could begin by showing my arguments to be false, instead of ignoring every single one of them. You continue to try to attack me as a person, rather than doing so. That's patently dishonest.


How is it a stalemate? You're the one veering the discussion onto irrelevant tangents about "The Father of Lies, unicorns, Easter Bunnies and garlands of garlic" in an attempt to ignore all the evidence I've provided that non-mining nodes are essential to network security. If they are in fact irrelevant to security, go ahead and address the arguments I've made instead of veering off on bizarre tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13865510#msg13865510
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13874689#msg13874689
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13879163#msg13879163
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344522.msg13909294#msg13909294
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338166.msg13920309#msg13920309


An "agent" is simply "the doer of an action." That implies nothing about whether they are "valid and legitimate."

How can you define "attacking nodes" as "valid and legitimate?" The premise of bitcoin is/was to use a peer-to-peer network to establish a trustless method for value transfer that addresses fraud. It was intended precisely to deter any suck attacks, suggesting that "attacking nodes" are not "legitimate" at all.



I'm at a loss for how double-spending attacks can be construed as "Bitcoin functioning as it should." From the introduction of the whitepaper:



Your link is a 404. Source?

Are you talking about this (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#Some_are_incentivizing_it)? And what is your point?


Perhaps, but certainly not in your favor.

This is pretty much it right here.

This bargainbin guy is like


and then when asked to explain how he is like 


The guy can't make a single point that isn't ripped to shreds and then he tries to act condescending.....LOL.....


Mashes [UPVOTE] button

http://s8.postimg.org/ha411hy0l/Capture.png

You are either unwilling or unable to stay focused. Until you are, >>>/dev/null.

As expected, you are unwilling or unable to present a logical argument.