Bitcoin Forum

Hello, I've been in bitcoin for 3+ years now and I would like to share my intellectual opinion about big blocks for bitcoin (2mb ,8mb ,etc) , the Bitcoin Hardfork, and about bitcoin in general and what are the concerns we need to watch out for.

Now there have been many shills, from both sides, so to just clear that out, so I want rational arguments pro/contra big blocks and hardforking bitcoin. I am personally anti-hardfork and therefore anti-big blocks, and I will demonstrate here why it is the best choice in my opinion. So stop shilling, and let's start debating this like civilized adults. I`ll present here my arguments and then you guys can respond to it. The thread will not be moderated so that I should not be accused as a shill. But I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators. Aso remember these are only my opinions from the knowledge I have so if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, I`m open to criticism!

---

1) The sacred Bitcoin Protocol

The bitcoin protocol is like a constitution, once you start making changes in it, you will pretty much find yourself in financial tyranny, abuse of power and corruption pretty soon. Whenever things can be changed easily, they will. If there is no resistance to change, they will always happen. Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized. Weather that be some sort of filter/blacklist/censoring system, or some sort of other oppressive patch installed into bitcoin. And then bitcoin will fail.

Of course like any constitution, changes have to happen eventually. You can't have the barbarian constitutions of the middle ages rule modern society, even if in the middle ages that was the sacred norm. Changes have to happen eventually, it is inevitable, but it has to be natural, well thought of, and based on real evidence and many many testing.

So in my opinion any change should be at least 1 generational. You don't want to change bitcoin too fast, when it's not even adopted yet by many people. Industry and tech changes too fast nowadays, but you have to slow down so that the clients can catch up. Hard fork is definitely not necessary right now (nor I think it will be in the foreseeable future), because I fear the community is still too young and prone to manipulation, therefore using this 'ring of power' is not an option.


2) Segwit

Segwit is good and necessary to fix fungibility and malleability. As a side-effect, it grows the block capacity as well. It is a temporary solution in terms of scaling the block capacity, because that is not it's goal. It's goal was only to fix malleability, which it probably will to some degree.


3) Sidechains + Lightning Network

This is the path of scaling the Core team choose. And I think it's a very elegant, decentralized approach to scaling. It is one way of doing it, and it's the most easy, immediate and fair way of doing it. Not to mention it's the most secure.

It's not a giant blob of code like ETH+ smart contracts, it's actually isolated from the bitcoin protocol. Security is only good if 1 sector is isolated from another. Think of it as a submarine, if the compartments are not isolated, then if it's breached, the water will sink the entire sub.

From transaction perspective, it can scale bitcoin really bigtime, while adding little or no centralization to the approach. Other 'classical' way would be to add an intermediary to issue IOU bitcoins that could be traded offchain. Well we know that is not an option for decentralization, so the LN is really cutting edge innovation, with little nor no centralization costs to the community.

The transactions will be instant, decentralized or semi-decentralized if you don't host the node, and would be the optimal choice given the current circumstances.

Therefore it is good to have this elegant, secure, and innovative approach to scaling. It also enables new features to bitcoin, that can be used to expand business, economy and other functions.

It is truly a piece of software art, truly crafted by the smartest people on the planet.


4) Urgent Hardfork

Well if the hardfork is really a 100% urgency like if ECDSA gets broken, then it's an urgency, and unfortunately it will have to be implemented. People will not like it, but it will be a true emergency so they will have no choice. However the probability of this is very low.

The more worrysome would be, once the devs have tasted the power of hardfork, then what? What classifies as an urgency? Can they just roll out hardfork every week when an 'urgency' becomes available? We go back to point 1), and how if things get too crazy, it can end bitcoin.

These have to be answered, and the community should always be skeptical.


5) Quantum Computers

I hear this argument many times, and it's mostly fearmongering. What if quantum computers become reality they can break bitcoin...?

Well I personally don't believe in large scale quantum computers, I think they won't ever exist, and there is plenty of evidence that supports this. Yes some laboratory theoretical computers might exist, but there are hard limits of thermodynamics that prevent the existence of large ones.

It's the same nonsense like the free energy advocates that think there is some hidden energy source, when 7th grade physics demonstrates you otherwise.

However classic computers might become one day powerful enough to find some exploit in the crypto algorithms (because brute forcing is obviously nearly-impossible).

And for that we shall react as in point 4). But not sooner than that. Bitcoin doesn't need 'what will happen if' type of patches. Bitcoin doesn't need insurance against alien invasion, we can deal with it, when the threat becomes sizeable.


6) Corruptible miners

What if the miners become untrustworthy? Low probability again, or it will be temporary. Game theory proves us that people working for incentives won't do things that will undermine the incentives. Or in other words people don't bit the hand that feeds them. If miners become shady then either they will run out of money before they can do too much evil, or they will become replaced by the honest ones, that would gain more money from mining honestly. Not to mention if they really piss off the community, everyone will just sell their coins and the mining business, as well as bitcoin will be over. If they implement capital controls to slow down the dumping, then the price will crash to 0 because nobody can buy, just as nobody can sell. Etc.. with many more theoretical attacks, but all end in disaster for the attacker.  So a miner betrayal would only be temporary at best.


7) Corruptible devs

So far we have had very honest reputable developers. What if that changes and we get replaced by corrupt ones?

Well it's like the saying goes, what you reap is what you sow. If the bitcoin community is comprised of programmers , IT experts and PC experts, then you will always find the best ones amongst them that can work on the code. If the bitcoin community will be comprised of morons, then bitcoin will end long before that.

So it's more important to keep the community healthy, because the community will supply the developers and bitcoin experts.

Also the bitcoin developers are decentralized, even if the Core team has control over the github depository, everyone can host bitcoin's source code on his server and work on the code.

The enforcing mechanism in bitcoin is the miners ,and I've explained in point 6) why miners are not prone to betrayal. So the devs incentive is to show his talent, get fame, get donations, and get careers. The miners enforce the rules, while the community decides weather they like it or not.

So if a dev becomes corrupt, he will achieve little, but will lose everything , especially his reputation.


8﴿ Corruptible community

Devs might be corrupt, miners might be, but all of them would be temporary issues. What if the community becomes corrupt?

Yes this is one of the most concerning factors, if the old guard leaves or gets bored of bitcoin, and we get replaced by 80 IQ morons , illiterate people, or just simply opportunists that dont care about bitcoin only want quick profit, then what?

Well this is one of the biggest and most realistic threats to bitcoin. If the community is dumb, it can be manipulated, and divided to be controlled. Everyone will just control the community by their own incentives and whoever can fool the most people will have control over bitcoin. It is a scary possibility.

My opinion would be a moderate adoption, with many tutorials for newbies, as teaching newbies about bitcoin and it's values. People need to feel home in bitcoin and appreciate it's qualities.

Also the old guard should never leave, if they do they are pussies, and whatever happens to bitcoin will be partially their fault. So people should educate newbies and teach them why bitcoin is the way to go.

9) Hardfork not fair for long term savers

Most bitcoin old guard, as well as new investors, want to save bitcoin for long term, usually in a secure wallet. If you roll out hard fork every year, then they will always have to uppgrade their wallets and work with sensitive information, that would expose them to unnecessary risk.

If they don't they can lose their money. What if they are not announced? What if they don't keep up with bitcoin news? You can't just push changes so fast because people will lose confidence in bitcoin's long term future.

If a person wants to put away for his kid's 18th birthday, and forget about that wallet for many years (but keep the private keys backed up and secure), he doesn't want to always be updated with all fixes and patches.

Even other softwares usually have support for 1 version of their software for many years, so why can't bitcoin be the same? It is, and that is how should it be!

So the SET & FORGET approach that most people feel comfortable with, will be violated, and it will upset many bitcoin whales.

10) Hardfork risks the entire network

Currently only 37% of the network runs the latest software, which is good, because if a bug gets discovered the other 67% will act as a backbone.

If you want to force a hardfork then everyone has to uppgrade before the grace period runs out, therefore all the network will have the same version. If a bug or malware gets discovered in the hardforked client, then the entire bitcoin network will be destroyed.

Therefore hardforks are ultra vulnerable to 0 day bugs (or undiscovered bugs). Decentralization should mean that you cannot be 100% confident of the developers, because we are all humans and we make mistakes, so even if the devs have checked the code many many times, you can still not risk the network, because  0 day bugs are very frequent, even in huge projects ( *cought* Ethereum *cought*)

1) The sacred Bitcoin Protocol: I think the current proposed HF from 1mb to 2mb wont make or break anything. But, it'll set a precedent that bitcoin protocol can be changed according to the demand of a cheering crowd. In future, there may be a cheering crowd to raise 21m supply cap. Question is what we do then?

2) Segwit: Malleability is already fixed. Segwit does not fix it further. Segwit is aimed to create space within 1mb block size and creating scopes from Sidechains & Lightning Network. But, Segwit is complicated. It might become a disaster like The DAO. Hence, as Segwit is soft fork, there should always be non-Segwit nodes and applications doing non-Segwit transaction, so that in case of a disaster, a part of the network survives and hence bitcoin.

3) Sidechains + Lightning Network: Secondary layer. No problem.

4) Urgent Hardfork: Very unlikely for robust network like bitcoin.

5) Quantum Computers: FIAT money sitting on banking network is on much more threat than Bitcoin network. We are ~10 billion USD, while they are in trillion. We might sit back and enjoy the show.

7) Corruptible devs: Devs can not enforce anything immediately as a change to the network. They can hold back the existing working system and resist a change. So, dev level corruption is no big threat.

6 & 8 ) Corruptible miners & Corruptible community: Corruption is a relative word. In a way, a part will always be corrupted. But, in reality, only those matter, who have deep skin in the system itself. In reality, community is miners and holders. If there are 1000 corrupted holder holding 0.01 BTC each, then they will have less effect on the network than 10 holders holding 10 BTC each. Because, if, at any point, holders need to decide the winning chain, the coin holding majority will decide which chain will survive by selling the other chain's coin. Individual majority of holders is not important. Now, to serve their own interest, the majority holders wont go against the best health of the bitcoin network, corrupted or not corrupted.

9) Hardfork not fair for long term savers: Already discussed in above points.

Yes combine 1) with 8 ), and if the community gets hijacked by socialists, they will demand a wealth redistribution mechanism to be implemented in the protocol.

It's sort of an extreme example, but it is plausible. So that is why change has to be very hard to make, and well tested and thought out before it happens.

What will we do then? Nothing, by then the entire community is just destroyed. We need to prevent this from happening.

2) I meant fungibility, i always mix the two. I`ll corect it.

5) Yes, as soon as it would exist, nations would start hacking eachother , and it would be chaos , but i dont think it's possible to exist

7) Yes, but delaying good info is not incentivized. They can earn money and fame by helping bitcoin, so it's against their incentive to do that.

8 ) Yes, but that is why i wish the old guard to stay, so far they have the most coins, and they are the most reputable people for bitcoin, so if they dont sell their coins, we will always have good people controlling the coins and influencing the community with pro-bitcoin spirit.

i actually think the OP's post is actually quite unbiased and reasonable

here is my insight to address three points (sacred protocol)(corruptible devs)(corruptible pools)
though things should change to adapt to the changing reality of users needs, we need to accept that even soft forks should need consensus just to be activated. and should need independent testing and reading every line of code.
this is because a softfork due to its nature of NOT needing upwards close to 100% adoption, allows the risk of bad code being added to change things 'on a whim'.
im glad mining pools are not going to run any new versions until they have done their own checks and tests... even if greenlit by core.

Technical point: This is very much not the case: Malleability is blocked in the relay network for a narrow class of transactions but anything clever is exposed, multisig is exposed to other-signer malleation, and all transactions are exposed to malleation by miners. Segwit fixes it in a deep and profound way for all purely segwit transactions.

The whitepaper doesn't say anything about 21 million coins-- or a great many other very important consensus rules. If the rule was intended to _simply_ be temporary it could have had an automatic phase out, but it didn't. If it was intended to go up as it filled, it could have-- just as difficulty adjusts, the mechanism is all there.

Already Ethereum users make the incorrect argument that bitcoin was hardforked in the past to fix the value overflow bug (it wasn't) and thus its okay for them to manually tamper with the ledger to claw the funds the DAO lost and hand them over to other users.  You're seeing a first hand demonstration for how quickly people cling to argument of convenience.

The rule by math element of Bitcoin is essential to the value proposition, great care should be taken to not erode it based on short term interests.

Out of curiosity, would you be willing to state your personal opinion on under what conditions it would be appropriate and/or beneficial to raise the blocksize limit? What particular concerns, technical or otherwise, do you consider most important when it comes to considering alterations to this particular aspect of the system? Of course, blocksize is only one aspect of capacity (and a horribly inefficient method of scaling capacity), but I'm curious if there are any particular conditions under which you feel raising the blocksize would be the appropriate solution. Is it only a last-resort method of increasing capacity? And when it comes to capacity, to what extent should it be increased? Is, "infinite", capacity even something we should be targetting?

It is my understanding that Core's implementation of segwit will also include an overall, "blocksize", increase (between both the witness and transaction blocks), though with a few scalability improvements that should make the increase less demanding on the system (linear verification scaling with segwit and Compactblocks come to mind). Do you personally support this particular instance of increasing the overall, "blocksize"?

To be clear, I'm just asking as someone who'd like to hear your informed opinion. In the short-term I'm not exactly worried about transaction capacity--certainly not hardfork worried--as with segwit on the way and the potential for LN or similar mechanisms to follow, short-term capacity issues could well be on their way out (really all I want short-term is an easier way to flag and use RBF so I can fix my fees during unexpected volume spikes). What I'm more curious about at this point are your views on the long-term--the, "133MB infinite transactions (http://lightning.network/docs/)", stage.

Of course, you're free to keep your opinions to yourself or only answer as much as you're comfortable divulging; it's not my intent to have you say anything that would encourage people to sling even more shit at you than they already have been lately :-\

I'd be glad to, and have many times in the past (also on the more general subject of hardforks (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20)), though I don't know that my particular views matter that much. I hope they do not.

Since we live in a physical world, with computers made of matter and run on energy there will be limits. We should make the system as _efficient_ as possible because, in a physical world, one of the concerns is that there is some inherent trade-off between blockchain load and decentralization. (Note that blockchain load != Bitcoin transactional load, because there are _many_ ways to transact that have reduced blockchain impact.) ... regardless of the capacity level we're at, more efficiency means a better point on that trade-off.

Not screwing up decentralization early in the system's life is a high priority for me: It is utterly integral to the system's value proposition in a way that few other properties are, and every loss of decenteralization we've suffered over the system's life has been used to argue that the next loss isn't a big deal, making progress backwards is hard: The system actually works _better_ in a conventional sense, under typical usage, as it becomes more centralized: Upgrades are faster and easier, total resource costs are lower, behavior is more regular and consistent, some kinds of attacks are less commonly attempted, properties which are socially "desirable" but not rational for participants don't get broken as much, etc. Decentralization is also central to other elements that we must improve to preserve Bitcoin's competitiveness as a worldwide, open and politically neutral money-- such as fungiblity.

But even if we imagine that we got near infinite efficiency, would we want near infinite capacity?

Bitcoin's creator proposed that security would be paid for in the future by users bidding for transaction fees. If there were no limit to the supply of capacity, than even a single miner could always make more money by undercutting the market and clearing it*. Difficulty can adapt down, so low fee income can result in security melting away.  This could potentially be avoided by cartel behavior by miners, but having miners collude to censor transactions would be quite harmful... and in the physical world with non-infinite efficiency, avoiding the miners from driving the nodes off the network is already needed.  Does that have to work as a static limit?  No-- and I think some of the flexcap proposals have promise for the future for addressing this point.

Some have proposed that instead of fees security in the future would be provided by altruistic companies donating to miners. The specific mechanisms proposed didn't make much sense-- e.g. they'd pay attackers just as much as honest miners, but that could be fixed... but the whole model of using altruism to pay for a commons has significant limitations, especially in a global anonymous network. We haven't shown altruism of this type to be successful at funding development or helping to preserve the decentralization of mining (e.g. p2pool). I currently see little reason to believe that this could workable alternative to the idea initially laid of of using fees... of course, if you switch it around from altruism to a mandatory tax, you end up with the inflationary model of some altcoins-- and that probably does "work", but it's not the economic policy we desire (and, in particular, without a trusted external input to control the inflation rate, it's not clear that it would really work for anyone).

So in the long term part of my concern is avoiding the system drifting into a state where we're all forced to choose between inflation or failure (in which case, a bitcoin that works is better than one that doesn't...).

As far as when, I think we should execute the most extreme caution in incompatible changes in general. If it's really safe and needed we can expect to see broad support... it becomes easier to get there when efforts are made to address the risks, e.g. segwit was a much easier sell because it improved scalablity while at the same time increasing capacity. Likewise, I expect successful future increases to come with or after other risk mitigations.

(* we can ignore orphaning effects for four reasons, orphaning increases as a function of transaction load can be ~completely eliminated with relay technology improvements, and if not that by miners centralizing.. and if all a miners income is going to pay for orphaning losses there will be no excess paying for competition thus security, and-- finally-- if transaction fees are mostly uniform, the only disincentive from orphaning comes from the loss of subsidy, which will quickly become inconsequential unless bitcoin is changed to be inflationary.)

I think the capacity increase is risky. The risks are compensated by improvements (both recent ones already done and immediately coming, e.g. libsecp256k1, compactblocks, tens of fold validation speed improvements, smarter relay, better pruning support) along with those in segwit.

I worry a lot that there is a widespread misunderstanding that blocks being "full" is bad-- block access is a priority queue based on feerate-- and at a feerate of ~0 there effectively infinite demand (for highly replicated perpetual storage). I believe that (absent radical new tech that we don't have yet) the system cannot survive as a usefully decentralized system if the response to "full" is to continually increase capacity (such as system would have almost no nodes, and also potentially have no way to pay for security). One of the biggest problems with hardfork proposals was that they directly fed this path-to-failure, and I worry that the segwit capacity increase may contribute to that too... e.g. that we'll temporarily not be "full" and then we'll be hit with piles of constructed "urgent! crash landing!" pressure to increase again to prevent "full" regardless of the costs.  E.g. a constant cycle of short term panic about an artificial condition pushing the system away from long term survivability.

But on the balance, I think the risks can be handled and the capacity increase will be useful, and the rest of segwit is a fantastic improvement that will set the stage for more improvements to come. Taking some increase now will also allow us to experience the effects and observe the impacts which might help improve confidence (or direct remediation) needed for future increases.

I think we don't know exactly how lightning usage patterns will play out, so the resource gains are hard to estimate with any real precision. Right now bidi channels are the only way we know of to get to really high total capacity without custodial entities (which I also think should have a place in the Bitcoin future).

Some of the early resource estimates from lightning have already been potentially made obsolete by new inventions. For example, the lightning paper originally needed the ability to have a high peak blocksize in order to get all the world's transactions into it (though such blocks could be 'costly' for miners to build, like flexcap systems) in order to handle the corner case where huge numbers of channels were uncooperative closed all at once and all had to get their closures in before their timeouts expired. In response to this, I proposed the concept of a sequence lock that stops when the network is beyond capacity ("timestop"); it looks like this should greatly the need for big blocks at a cost of potentially delaying closure when the network is usually loaded; though further design and analysis is needed.  I think we've only started exploring the potential design space with channels.

Besides capacity, payment channels (and other tools) provide other features that will be important in bringing our currency to more places-- in particular, "instant payment".

As much as I personally dislike it, other services like credit are very common and highly desired by some markets-- and that is a service that can be offered by other layers as well.

I'm sorry to say that an easy to use fee-bump replacement feature just missed the merge window for Bitcoin Core 0.13. I'm pretty confident that it'll make it into 0.14. I believe Green Address has an feebump available already (but I haven't tried it). 0.13 will have ancestor feerate mining ("child pays for parent") so that is another mechanism that should help unwedge low fee transactions, though not as useful as replacement.

Ha, that's unavoidable.  I just do what I can, and try to remind myself that if no one at all is mad then what I'm doing probably doesn't matter.

Your last argument about the old timers makes complete sense to me, but hopefully these changes would not be done in a way to compromise the safety of coins stored years ago. < Software should always be backward compatible > I am also of the opinion that block sizes or any other parameter within the protocol should only be changed, if it is very detrimental to it's survival, not just to add small cosmetic changes. ^smile^

to Gmaxwell, i can honestly say that your last post was a genuine open minded opinion taking everything into account. it was a good read.

there is just one sticking point

at this current early era of bitcoin, the fee's are treated as a bonus(subsidy) and the reward is treated as the salary(income). whereby the deflationary nature of the reward causes the fiat price(speculatively) to offset the deflationary nature to keep pools comfortable long term for a couple decades(ignoring short term panic price emotional drama once each 4 years).
and as such it is not necessary at this time to be forced to wait for blocks to be full, before increasing some bufferspace/wiggle room to allow natural growth right now, purely on the bases of fee's

i say this because the paragraph i quoted is concerning and that it seems that bottlenecking blocks appears to some devs to be a good thing, because it launches the fee war.
but fees will only become essential in a couple decades.

so here is my question. imagine that segwit was in production in 2013. tested and independently vetted by 2014. would it have been included in v0.10 or would developers have dragged their feet until the fee war started this year and waited to 0.13 because of the worry about mining in 2032+(reward under 1btc)
isnt it the case that by pushing a fee war early is simply causing a taxation of bitcoin which will hurt bitcoins utility and desirability which can literally tank the speculative price to force fee's to become more essential sooner, to offset their income and thus raise the tax higher in and endless spiral.

however within those couple decades other things can be put inplace to help achieve the ultimate goal in a few decades of switching salary<-->bonus (income<-->subsidy)
whereby the 'full blocks are good, fee war is good' mindset should not be front of mind for devs, because a slow progression should be the mindset. rather than a manic push to switch sooner

i hope to see a honest and respectful opinion
i truly hope your reply is that segwit would have been implemented when independently vetted, tested, rather than dragging feet in favour of a early fee war.

I fully agree! For me it's pretty hard to understand that quite a few people seem to be unable to understand the primary importance of decentralization for Bitcoin being valuable. People, who claim that transaction capacity and fast growth are more important than decentralization do not really get the reason of why Bitcoin came into existence.

Today, you can already do fast, high capacity transactions via centralized electronic payment providers. You don't need Bitcoin for that. A decentralized Bitcoin will never be able to compete with centralized payment solutions in terms of efficiency. And it should not have this goal, because the essential competitive advantage of Bitcoin stems from the fact that in addition to the value-transfer service it provides it represents also a store of value. This store of value function and hence the competitive advantage is endangered by any action that diminishes Bitcoin's fungibility.

ya.ya.yo!

You speak as if capacity is a luxury.  The implication is that if capacity needs to be limited
that's ok because Bitcoin can act as a settlement layer or something like that.

This is something I (and others) are very suspicious of.

I dont support hardforks, but i can accept arguments from pro-hardforker if they can come up with good ones. It can be debated.


Yes soft forks need a lot of reviewing and testing as well, absolutely true. But this is already happening, every bitcoin client can potentially have some bug in it, that is why people should never uppgrade all at once.

Therefore you cannot force hardfork, because then everyone has to uppgrade before the grace period runs out, therefore a hardfork is 1000% more risky than a soft one.

Currently only 37% run the latest bitcoin version, so the other 63% acts as a backbone if there is a 0 day bug in the currrent version.

It cannot be said about a hardfork scenario....

Just added this point to point 10) , because it's really a very important point

Damn, thanks for that lengthy and comprehensive response--big confidence builder as it (more-or-less) confirms a lot of my assumptions regarding the concerns in the system. A decentralised backbone upon which other systems can be built seems like the right choice if decentralisation is something which we value. Second-layer solutions that make tradeoffs of decentralisation/whatnot to meet the demands of higher capacity can happen (and already do--just look at all the off-chain trades on exchanges) on top of a decentralised ledger, but second-layer solutions cannot return decentralisation to Bitcoin if it is lost.

Honestly, I'm going long on Bitcoin anyhow (most of my transactions involve combining small outputs from altcoin mining), so current usability/capacity concerns aren't especially pressing for me, especially with huge improvements in these areas already in development. It will be an experience to see how this plays out over the next few years--just what will Bitcoin look like by the 2020 halving?

Both are already failures - if you're realistic about it. I don't see any connection between the bad ideas of Gregory Maxwell and a few others, and Bitcoin as a system. Sidechains are one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in Bitcoin ever. The ideas was proposed 3 years ago, whitepaper written 2 years ago, and there is no functioning system and I predict there will never be. Lightning is quite interesting, but will be a failure, too. I will be on my beliefs by selling Bitcoin for a better alternative when it arrives. There are deep economic reasons for these ideas to be bad, but you can't expect from core developers any understanding of it. They don't even see the incentive and scaling problems as they are. "Scaling Bitcoin" is a misnomer to begin with.


No. Bitcoin dev is centralised around a small group of people, for good and bad reasons. Nobody can add just add any patch to the system. Forking blockstream/core is basically starting a new chain and project.

The fallacies used by Ethereum users to justify tampering with the ledger are extreme and are certainly a slippery slope to the end of reliability in the truth and security of the transactions on their chain.  They are all the fallacies that support socialism, big government, bailouts, wealth redistribution, etc... 

As and when bitcoin becomes more mainstream, it too will have taken on a majority of individuals who do not understand that the whole thing was created precisely to prevent majorities or powerful individuals from violating the property rights of other individuals.  This is why making such interventions as hard as possible, if not downright impossible, must remain the top priority of the system. 

I'd argue the whole thing was created to be neutral and open to anyone and that the disagreements in the community are largely caused by people trying to project their own political outlooks on the protocol.  One of these days you'll all just have to accept that as the userbase increases, so will the number of different opinions and worldviews.  Not everyone is a hardcore libertarian and you're going to have to share the chain with them whether you like it or not.  Bitcoin is not some isolationist paradise where you can shut out all the people you personally disagree with. 

As a hodler for 5 years, since 2011, this is what I bought into:






Highlights added by me.

After reading the whitepaper, and Satoshi's other writings, I bought Bitcoin.

Anything other than what Satoshi specified is a deviation from what I bought into, and should be treated with great suspicion.

If you read and understand what he wrote, he intended Bitcoin to support what was possible according to network limits. He did not intend hard limits to force any specific level of "decentralisation" - only those necessary to prevent "flooding" and the network completely falling to its knees.

No. Sidechains are a good idea and you're spewing out false information. If there "is no functioning system", then what is Liquid? What is Rootstock supposed to be?

It seems that everything that comes from the people which are trying to improve Bitcoin is a failure, according to the people who have no skills and/or no contributions to the ecosystem. ::)

No, it is not centralized. If it were centralized, the main person could push any changes that they've wanted. Additionally "blockstream/core" is an very ignorant statement. Are you not capable of comprehending the difference between those two?

You're misrepresenting Satoshi if you think cherry-picking things he's said to support a bigblocks perspective is the sum total of his reasoning on the matter: it isn't.

And, Satoshi didn't get every single detail right anyway, and also, he's not (known) to be developing Bitcoin any more. When you bought Bitcoin, you had no reasonable expectations that Satoshi would either always be right, or that he would always be around. I got in right when Satoshi left, maybe that helps with my perspective a little better.




Just because Central Bankers believe they're "magical people", doesn't mean other monetary genius's should be examined with the same faulty measuring technique.

Decentralization is not an important goal in and of itself.  The end goal is censorship resistance.
User adoption contributes to censorship resistance. Therefore to the extent a block size limit restricts user adoption, it also diminishes censorship resistance.

How does user adoption, in isolation, increase censorship resistance?

Censorship is enabled by technical factors but motivated by political sentiment.
All other things being equal, increased user adoption decreases technical vulnerability (more users means more nodes and a higher bitcoin price which means more miners) and improves political standing.

https://security.cs.georgetown.edu/~msherr/papers/censorship-as-sideeffect.pdf

But the correlation is 99% between centralization and censorship. Everyone things that by censoring only few evil transactions is good, but then soon find out that everyone will be censored.

You either have no censorship, or full censorship, there is no middle ground for it, it's a black & white issue.

Right, well that's wrong.

More users won't and can't amount to an increase in nodes; if increasing the blocksize prevents them running a node, they'll end up using web-nodes or non-verifying wallets instead (i.e. reduced/zero censorship resistance).


Last year, I spent time staying in middle-class rural area, in a Western country. Maximum internet speeds were 0.5 MB/s dl, 0.5 MD/s ul. Only last year.

When I tried keeping my full node online in that setting, no-one else could use the same 0.5MB/s internet line for anything except baaaaaaasic webpages. If the webpage had more than a few megabytes of images, it was either too frustratingly slow to load, or just failed outright.


If that's what people in rural Western countries can expect, those in urban 3rd world countries won't be getting alot better. We need those people. So a conservative approach is best for achieving both censorship resistance and decentralisation with this type of system. Decentralisation is a vital component to censorship resistance when you factor in the resources required to use Bitcoin in a censorship resistant fashion.

It's not bitcoins fault that their internet is shitty.

Where I live we have 20mb/s bandwidth with 99.99999999% uptime. Only 1 or maybe 2 days / year the internet is slower, the other times works best.

Those countries should start inviting more ISP in their country, if the internet is so bad, the first ISP that offers big bandwidth will make a ton of money, so there is no logic why the ISP doesnt offer bigger bandwidth, he can make a ton of money and get big marketshare.

Of course unless the legislation sucks, but that is the politicians fault not bitcoin nor the businesses. They need fewer regulations to host good internet.

here is carlton trying hard but failing..
for one
0.5mBIT/s upload = 64kBYTE/s
64kBYTE/s = 3.75mBYTE per minute
3.75mBYTE/m = 37mBYTE per 10 minutes.

so not great if your trying to relay a block to more than 7 nodes in under 2 minutes.. but possible.
and knowing there are only 6000 nodes. and the rules of seven degrees of separation. you dont actually need to be connecting to 7 nodes,

infact if you live in a low internet upload rate. you are probably going to be one of the people that opts for the "pruned" and "no witness mode" anyway.

which brings me onto my other point.
segnet has seen many blocks that are also more than 1mb of real data.. so segwit does not solve the data rate, segwit is just as bloated as anything else

and by the way running pruned nowitness mode does not make you a full node. you are basically converted into being just an SPV wallet by enabling pruned/nowitness. so dont presume you can save bandwidth usage and remain a fullnode.

so expect that even with segwit the node population will drop.

Segwit will be released with the Compact Blocks block-relay feature too, so Franky is just as aimless and meaningless as usual.

Good post xDan,

Very representative of satoshi's thinking on scaling, fees and time.
It is not cherry picking to provide 5 quotes and also, as you said, "read and understand what he wrote".

Carlton Banks provides no counter quote, as usual, just goes on to say
"you had no reasonable expectations that Satoshi would ... always be right"

I think your expectation was reasonable.
Far more reasonable than Banks expectation satoshi was always wrong.

I also signed up to the simpler and safer satoshi Bitcoin.
Not this barely tested, change everything, we know better, my internet is shit when I'm on holiday friendly, Banks bitcoin.

Ok, but what are you going to do with your self-proclaimed (lol) "reasonable expectations"? Hmmmmm?


And your claim that I said Satoshi was always wrong isn't just :

• plainly not what happened, a couple of posts up, you moron
• obviously massively illogical statement for a long-term Bitcoiner like me to make
• but a pure and simple demonstration of what a foul-playing troll you are

carlton is just mad that no one is proclaiming adam back as the messiah.

Franky, get a new job.

You can't be eating well from this one, where's your vitality, man? Please, I'm begging you to do this better than you have been, it's hardly worth my time these days. I expect higher quality BS logic and trolling from you. C'mon, what happened to the old Franky1? (yeah, we know you bought the account years ago and have been aping his "ordinary person" schtick ever since)

carlton i have had this same account since day one. it has never been sold,
but its obvious your mindset of thinking that people can be "bought" resides from the knowledge of your dear friends being bought out..
this just adds more ammo to the common debate of the last couple years.

blockstreams $$$ investment has turned originally ethical coders, into dominating control freaks.
adding to that, your blind fanboy admiration for them by:
defending them by saying in one sentence they deserve to run bitcoin, because they are a big well crafted team
then pretend in another sentence they are not part of bitcoin, or core
then in another sentence saying blockstream was set up by the coders uniting,
then in another sentence saying the coders are independent,

really goes to show you would say anything to let bitcoin become incorporated.
the reason you are bored of my narrative that the blocklimit needs to increase, is because i have one narrative. its not due to XT, its not due to classic, its not due to BU, its not due to luke Jrs signed promise. its due to my personal beliefs.

however your narrative cannot find a single direction of thought on the face of it, but when you brush away the meandering sub-context you try to make, the obvious devotion to blockstream becomes apparent.

that said i really hope blockstream helps your monero altcoin hoards become worth millions. because you are really reaching the bottom and running out of ways to defend them. and i hope you get rich before they leave you high and dry

plus your hypocrisy is getting much louder, along with your futile insults so thats another reason i hope to see you concentrate more on your altcoin desires

by the way every time i see you insult one of the 300,000 merchants in the bitcoin industry, all you are really saying is that you are jealous that your monero doesnt have the same level of industry.

..
sometimes i think its a real shame that you have blind devotion to blockstream. because there will become a day when the bubble will burst for your cultish behavior and you will have to re-enter the real world

lol Franky, you started the personal attacks.


The thing about your personal attacks against you & others? Easily demonstrated as false.

The thing about my personal attacks against you? True. All true. And the truth hurts. And you're hurting. Bad. Lol.

Let’s face facts Carlton. Gregory’s (and your) opinion that Bitcoin is kept safe and decentralized by the wisdom of a centralized and technocratic development team is a sharp break from what satoshi wrote in the white paper and elsewhere.

You could argue that he was wrong and that he couldn’t foresee how important dev control over this parameter would be… but you can’t argue that this isn’t a break from what he wrote. This break has led to the perversion of the original vision where economic incentives protect and govern Bitcoin’s trajectory to a vision where key developers carefully manage an anti-dos limit from 2010 for use as an economic policy tool. (A tool that can directly benefit the company they formed with Austin Hill.)

Go ahead and cry troll if something makes you uncomfortable, but know that it makes you look silly and compromised.

Satoshi didn't say anything about dev team structure that I'm aware of. But guess what he did do? Presided over the evolution of the exact dev team structure that we have now, with almost all of the original coders still contributing like they did back when they did so alongside Satoshi.

And what did Satoshi say about the "evil centralised dev team" once he'd watched and collaborating in building it up? Nothing.




Nexttttttttttttttttttttttt. Who wants it?

We already have pretty corrupt devs, just look at Gavin for example.

satoshi disappeared before the corporate sellout happened.. so you cant say he was all for it,
plus the genesis block message itself shows what satoshi's mindset and reasoning for bitcoin were.. which was definetly not to have another corporate currency
but let me guess you are going to meander away from admitting the genesis block message exists and why bitcoin was formed in the first place

oh and by the way the dev team he "presided" over then is not the same as the dev team now.
LukeJR - github joined october 2011
Gmaxwell - github joined june 2011
pieter wuille - github joined january 2011

please stop making corporate paid coders into messiahs.. its not healthy for you

Indeed, but Gavin is amongst those coders that isn't in Bitcoin anymore (along with people like Jeff Garzik and Mike Hearn). He's not relevant in 2016, except to Bitcoin's history (of corrupt devs)

https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png

VS

Yeah ::)

So, you're twisting things now to imply that POW mining has been replaced with gmaxwell's emails? That's hilarious, you realise that only the most ignorant of ignorants would buy that?

And even more hilariously contradictory: who has been the most vociferous attackers of the white paper consensus mechanism? Oh, that'll be your hardfork 2MB2MB2MB cheerleaders? Remember Peter R and his magical graph gif?


So let's be honest: internet troll defined is.... someone who subverts or outright contorts the truth to piss people off on the internet. How is that in any way different to the content and intent of almost every single post you come up with? Because reality is the opposite of every argument you make

To those calling for further decentralization and increased censorship resistance, China has trolled you all.

We already know that larger blocks will likely become an issue for fully validating nodes behind GFW regardless of seg wit. Furthermore, no one needs to be reminded that a vast majority of hashing power is located behind the great firewall.
Why don't we kill two birds with one stone, raise the blocksize already and force China to rethink it's priorities on censorship.
Who's with me?

And to those complaining about disk space, the blockchain in it's entirety can easily fit into RAM these days!

What are "the Chinese" censoring?


Uh, you mean the everyday typical RAM amount of 80GB? Right

just to clarify.. although the majority of hashpower is in china.. the POOL is not.
a simply laymans explanation is that ASIC miners do not have a hard drive.. they dont hold the blockchain. so them being behind the Chinese firewall means nothing..
their POOL which does have the blockchain, does the main job of communicating the hashes between miners, and communicates solved blocks to the world is outside the firewall. so in short the firewall is not a problem or something to be considered a reason why pools are saying/doing anything

Everyday typical users should just use SPV clients. If you're paranoid then buy a HDD or don't use bitcoin.

I thought it was 80 GB of RAM I needed to buy? lol. Why not round it up to 96GB, what the hell! It'd make filling the memory channels easier

Totally typical, like those 1 GBPS download/upload connections. Did you not know that? I have no idea why we don't have 1 GB blocks right now, it is easy to download with those speeds ???  ::)

So if you want to verify that the incoming information is indeed correct you are paranoid and should either spend more money or not use Bitcoin at all? This logic is horrible. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty and as such it should not be too difficult for one to use a 'full' wallet if they chose to. I have personally never use anything other (aside from testing SPV a few times).

dbcache=80000, a 16 Core CPU and everything will be swift. All you need to do is combine those typical things with the typical 1 GBPS download connection!

Just need a winged pegasus to fly on while I'm blockchainin', and I'm good to go!

Where is "the" pool then?

So far i found these.
f2pool stratum.f2pool.com 42.96.248.230
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China


BTCC stratum.btcchina.com 180.97.161.9
AS4134 China Telecom Backbone
Country of Orgin: China

BW.com stratum.bw.com 120.55.153.228
AS37963 Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co.,Ltd.
Country of Orgin: China

You saying that BGP is lying today? lol

I don't think a winged pegasus would be nessisary but the following item should suffice. $549
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-2U-Server-H8DG6-F-2x-AMD-6272-2-1ghz-16-Core-128gb-9211-8i-6g-1x1200w-/371646283884?hash=item5687d8406c:g:h3UAAOSwbYZXUfpX (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Supermicro-2U-Server-H8DG6-F-2x-AMD-6272-2-1ghz-16-Core-128gb-9211-8i-6g-1x1200w-/371646283884?hash=item5687d8406c:g:h3UAAOSwbYZXUfpX)

I worry too, but you appear to be adding to this misunderstanding.

You are saying blocks can always be full (if the miners wished) because there are infinite 0 fee transactions in the memool.
Therefore, any increase is useless to get blocks less than full.
Therefore every increase will be filled with 0 fee transactions to infinity.

Blocks have recently been full of fee paying transactions, not 0 fee transactions.
Now adoption is on stop for a year.
(I know core want it this way, escalating fees. dynamic fee market)

0 fees is not an issue here.
0 fees have nothing to do with full blocks or required blocks size.

Dollars? eBay? What sort of Bitcoiner is this? Oh right, the sort that wants to start the 1,0001st failed attempt at a hard fork dev team coup

Can you not engage in a meaningful debate?
I don't even care if it's a hard fork or not. I'm simply stating that ANY increase in blocksize will not be the end of bitcoin. I'm also on board with segwit but please remind me, when will segwit be implemented?

Segwit is implemented and has been recently merged for the upcoming version. Check the Github page and the commits. However, the exact details of activation have not been set yet.

No, Segwit has not been implemented. It has been merged, yes but the answer to my original question is that no one actually knows when it will be active. This is the real problem. Markets that are unable to respond to demand by the users are not free.

Apparently you don't know the difference between the words 'implementation' and 'activation'. If you want to try out Segwit you can do so on testnet.

That's not a problem at all. You will be aware of the activation date once everything is ready and the appropriate version has been released. These things need not be rushed.

Listen, we get shilled and trolled to high heaven on this forum by people sugesting exactly your forthright assertion that blocksize needs increasing via hardfork. If you're onboard with Segwit, coming in with suggestions to cut off >half the hashrate is really disruptive, if nothing else, particularly seeing as Segwit is a blocksize increase.



It might come out earlier, in 0.12.2. Depends how they schedule it all. Activation is the same/similar to the other soft forks: 95% of blocks in a 2016 block window locks the activation date to another 2016 blocks after that.

Does anyone care to argue ANY valid point's regarding why a blocksize increase is a bad idea?

No, because one way or another, it's going up. There is no argument to be had, except the same tired old "b-b-but main chain 2MB" stuff. Knock yourself out, but I'm not interested

Because Gregory said so. QED.

Why do you insist on attacking broad and uncontentious consensus like this?

Quick and short list:

• Network has practically no hard fork experience.
• 2 MB block size limit is unsafe due to quadratic validation time - Gavin's BIP for Classic adds additional limitations to prevent this.
• Does not improve scalability at all.
• Does not come with any benefits besides increased TPS either.

This has all been discussed over and over in various places. This is why Segwit is the next step, it will make validation time linear among other things. I can't say whether and when a potential block size increase is going to come after Segwit.

lol I'm talking about one line of code to help fulfill demand by users for faster confirmation times.
If everyone agrees that blocks should be larger, then please tell me why changing one line of code is a bad idea.

If you think that it is 'one line of code' then you really don't know what you're talking about. Take a look at how many lines of code Gavin's BIP has and then come here. A 2 MB block size limit is not safe on its own. If it were, then Classic would have not added those limitations.

How many 'lines of code' are included in segwit?

How is scalability not improved with TPS increase?
Since everyone agrees that we will need a blocksize increase regardless of segwit, should we just wait until the network is has "more hard fork experience" ? lol

Because scalability and TPS are not synonymous metrics. Scalability includes a whole bunch of other factors, throughput is only one. Increasing the blocksize only improves 1 factor: the throughput (i.e. TPS). And it does so at the expense of all other factors: hence, does not constitute a scaling solution

What metric would like to see used when referring to scalability? I'm pretty sure that more TPS will certainly provide additional scalability. The block propagation time issue has already been addressed by Xthin /compact blocks. What else is there really to be concerned with?

franky, you cannot be serious. You're actually biting my style! Go home, you're so done, lol. That's like the most absolute victory, you're actually trying to run my lines: on me! ahhhhahhahhhhhaaahhhaaaaaaa. haha. That's priceless, do another one lol

Proclivities have nothing to do with it. This is about reality. And they're different expressions. With different meainings. That's why they're spelled different, to help you differentiate between the two.


Xthin is flawed, gmaxwell found a hash collision bug in xthin, GTFO with that garbage. Another major issue is node distribution, and there is no good metric for that.

Contrast the system of "holy 1MB protecting decentralization", with satoshi's actual thoughts on the matter...    :'(

https://i.imgur.com/0HeFhiS.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg7687#msg7687

https://i.imgur.com/ZkZ80WT.png
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810

My, how far we've fallen down the Maxwellian rabbit hole.

What relay network are we referring to here?
Does segwit still not provide a solution to malleation by miners for on-chain transactions? Just curious because it sound's Malleability is only "blocked" on the "relay" network. How is consensus enforced in this relay network?  Can i run a "relay network" node? Is the "relay network" open sourced?

gmaxwell > satoshi. Yeah, I said it.

There were some really serious bugs in Satoshi's code; who fixed those bugs? Core team. Give it up, Satoshi was inspired, but not the Second Coming. Someone better than Peter Todd or gmaxwell will turn up one day, too. Inspired by all of them; ruled by none of them

The reality is you still have not answered my question. What else is there really to be concerned with? Other than items we have listed here, e.g. compact blocks etc.

Yes, you did say it. I’m glad you did, it helps explain the psyche of the mini-blocker.

Let’s just hope that when “some bloke” > gregory maxwell > satoshi shows up… they don’t go found a VC/legacy finance funded operation with confessed scammer Austin D. Hill to siphon utility and revenue away from the native Bitcoin network, again.

gmaxwell has still not resolved the malleability issue for ON CHAIN TRANSACTIONS

If you mean non-segwit transactions = on chain transactions, this could be true, I guess.
[Ironically it wouldn't be if segwit was done without the opcode hack and as a HF.]

But he (really his coworker, and contractor, Pieter and luke-jr) HAS solved on chain + segwit malleability, which is critical for payment channel smart contract use of the chain. So you see how Core development really works... everything that Blockstream wants/needs is done straight away (BIP9, CSV, SFSW), while even planning for a small capacity HF over a year away is indefinitely shelved.

The main point here is that Bitcoin transaction malleability has never been fixed. ONLY segwit malleability has been fixed, and segwit doesn't even exist yet. . .

Well, to match you in a little pedantry...

That's more of a declarative than a point, really.

What are you even talking about?

I’m saying your point wasn’t sufficiently sharpened.

Malleability isn’t an actual problem for most applications. Where it is a problem, for LN type payment contracts, it can be fixed by segwit, which they will use. So, while you declared a true statement in the snapshot of today, you didn’t follow with what that means for us… which explains the blunt tip of your reply. 

If malleability is not an actual problem, then what is segwit good for? A scalability solution? At the end of the day someone still has to relay segwit transactions. Why should we need to run a relay network node and a bitcoin network node? Is there any incentive to run a Lightning Network node?

Edit: I understand that segwit provides the possibility for things like payment channels etc. But why is it being touted as a scaling solution for BITCOIN, knowing that segnet and Bitcoin are two different things. I think the topic of this thread is about The BITCOIN blocksize debate unless i misread the title. . .

Just because one has a problem with the way LN type payment contracts are being economically favored through the central planning of a static maxblocksize... doesn't mean one has to / should be against them totally.

Let's face it, they are a breakthrough that really could be a serious force multiplier for Bitcoin. Segwit brings big benefits too in terms of validation costs, it's more than just malleability.

I'm for fair competition of different solutions, on-chain/off-chain/hybrids, etc... I only complain about the economic incentives being tilted in favor of a "chosen" solution by an infallible priesthood of Core devs.

I understand that segwit provides the possibility for things like payment channels etc. But why is it being touted as a scaling solution for BITCOIN, knowing that segnet and Bitcoin are two different things. I think the topic of this thread is about The BITCOIN blocksize debate unless i misread the title. . .

need we mention that the big neon advertisement of segwit was to remove malleability..
where the problem of malleability was the ability to change a transaction before it gets confirmed to make zero confirms untrustable.
yet they go and "reintroduce" being able to replace a transaction by changing the fees(RBF).. making zero-confirms still untrustable even if malleability was fixed

then there is the "2mb of data is too much bloat for the network especially the chinese firewall blah blah" debate..
which got laughed at because although chinese companies run the (non-harddrive) ASICS within china. the pool server(hosting blockchain data) is outside the firewall
aswell as the maths of even a most basic ADSL connection allows home users to connect to a few nodes easily
and then we come to the real funny part.. segnet showing blocks over 2mb(1 (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/000000ddf050de21b895ff687102211806ef2322143c1bea2638490e696f6e56),2 (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/00000056a6d930e62f81108f43b490931c9722a324a71b7e959fd03fb6be0580)).. which totally laughs the "2mb is too much data" straight out the water.

need we forget the whole point of a maxblocksize rule is to ensure that a maximum of 1mb of real data is transmitted per block. which is basically rendered useless as a real rule if real data is exceeding 1mb with a 1mb rule

as for the doomsday of quadratics (yep they are running out of excuses and now scraping the bottom of the doomsday barrel)
they do not realise that not only will xthin/compact blocks mean that nodes are not having to validate 1-3mb of data in one lump just to know if a block is good or not.. also things like the re-coding of the validation code library is 5x more efficient.. so when individual transactions are relayed they are validated 5x faster compared to previous years..

so they are near scraping the bottom of the barrel finding reasons not to increase the maxblocksize, is that "hard forks are bad".
yet the so called "soft" fork is apparently more harder then first thought.. now requiring 95% acceptance followed by a grace period to activate.. strangely advertised that it was fully backward compatible and all nodes can sing and dance together harmoniously without consensus..

hmmm.. well knowing full nodes will want to remain full nodes. they will want to upgrade anyway.. so if they are going to be upgrading. they might aswell add in a change to the maxblocksize (preferably one that self adjusts without having to rely on core-devs to spoon feed new code every few years.. after a year of debate.)

then when the 95% hits and the full nodes want to upgrade.. there is no mass panic.. or having to upgrade again in a few months and go though the consensus process again.. because its already part of bitcoins code

but wait.. they have one last ditch attempt up their sleeves..
rather than have code available and let users choose if they want it.. its far better they dont release the code, to cause contention. and then blame contention.... ... ... ... (facepalm)

SFSW has been sold as being done in lieu of an increase to the BITCOIN max_block_size (contrary to HK "consensus" meeting), so yes, it is relevant here.

So even with consensus of users and miners(HK agreement) Gmaxwell is still Jesus? Is he uploading this shit from dialup or what?

Basically, yeah, according to Carlton.

People need to call out this bullshit, why is everyone okay with this?

Calm down folks, I was asking for a civilized debate and then people start namecalling eachother and insults...

We need to debate this stuff with clear minds and calm manner, otherwise it will be only a circus. So be more calm guys!

Apathy mostly, I’d say. Most of the users left around here are sig spammers, dropping one-liners of meaningless drivel for their weekly shekel. Others think that if the price is going up on the exchange... it must be the right roadmap. The average Bitcoiner assumes… “Whell, the experts must know more than me (they do), they must be looking out for my best interests (they might not be)”.

They go to bitcoin.org to get their software, they go to theymos owned outlets for their information… we’ve created a bizarre little microcosm of the real world, happened faster and easier than I expected.   :-\

Everyone knows there isn't a debate. Blocksize will not increase just by talking about it. More nefarious means will be required to stop Bitcoin from getting blockstreamed, unfortunately that may mean reverting to their own sick tactics.

Nah, it really is a miner decision, and they are the main ones to act if the problem becomes intolerable. They could have already forked around the obstruction, but deemed the benefit of a tense predictability greater than the danger of acting unilaterally and risking Core ragequitting a chunk of the market to a keccak altcoin, at least at that point in time.

The best we can do is to try to keep informed, argue our case where we can, and run node software that signals our intent.

"Segwit doesn't even exist yet"? AFAIK Segwit has existed already back in 2015 within Liquid, but it was only after Luke-jr found a way to implement it with a soft fork that the work started on it for the main implementation. Over the course of time, there was segnet and now it is also on the testnet. The people that have been testing there have mined several 'bigger blocks'. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Take a look at part 8 or my thread titled "How I would take down Bitcoin" and you should clearly see what's going on.

+1

Alice, Franky and ziiip are probably all trolls and shills, and them turning your thread into an episode of WWE is likely an evolution of their "tactics" (lol). Alice and Franky are definite manipulative shills, it's possible that ziiiiiip is just a regular attention seeking internet troll.

They're all here to disrupt and malign, regardless of their motivation. They deserve ZERO respect. NOTHING

ignoring the whistles in the wind from the obvious provocateur above

people want more capacity via the blocklimit. people after months of debate last year settled on 2mb as a not so harsh number to increase to, to squash most of the debates concerning bandwidth issues.

yet segwit will produce OVER 2mb of real data without offering any real capacity growth. as shown here
for just 350tx of ~1in1out https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/000000ddf050de21b895ff687102211806ef2322143c1bea2638490e696f6e56
for just 655tx of ~1in1out https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/00000056a6d930e62f81108f43b490931c9722a324a71b7e959fd03fb6be0580
for just 798tx of ~1in1out https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000000077e62f36a6e2e748cca6f5cd543ce3d1aa29ee83f1cfd584c6fad078
https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000019cf0e635db7bc894f1006369f128132e5e938857d99396309c9b1c99ee

this does not make those wanting a HF "bigblockers", but instead those wanting a SF are the real "bigblockers"

as for the comments of "segwit doesnt exist yet". that should be taken in the context of BITCOIN and not altcoins(yes testnet/segnet are altccoins). so because we only care about bitcoin and this topic is about the blocksize debate of... wait for it... BITCOIN. then its true right now segwit doesnt exist for the context of this debate

no one cares that an altcoin has feature X,Y,Z
unless people can use it with bitcoin and the code is embedded in a publicly available release that handles BITCOINs blockchain data, then its not even worth pretending that its solved bitcoins issues.. because it hasnt

If the blocksize limit is far below what humanity is capable of accommodating with a highly decentralized network then yes, we'd be in a situation similar to the one we have today (hopefully without the node crashing concerns). This problem applies to all of the proposals. 8)

By your twisted definition, 2MB2MB2MB is an altcoin too. Remember when XT and Classic propaganda got relegated to the Altcoin section?


And more twisting: the Gavinistas are the "real" small blocks advocates. Uh, yeah, except when you were all supporting exponential increases in the blocksize, up to 8GB? You seem to think that you can make your preferred fantasies into facts simply by typing them out and posting them (or by repeating-repeating-repeating-repeating.....).

You do realise that everyone else doesn't live in that bubble where they can only hear your voice? You might be able to hypnotise yourself with your own mantras, but everyone else just sees a dishevelled man, rocking in the corner saying the same words over and over again, banging his head on the wall.



You're a top shill for the takeover attempt, Franky, and you're so crap that you're now stealing my lines (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15375425#msg15375425). When will you learn?

the public releases of all implementations offering a bitcoin HF are interacting with the bitcoins genesis block and blockchain data of bitcoin, thus are not an altcoin. however testnet and segnet do not touch any bitcoin data and there are no public releases for a segwit that interacts with bitcoin data

secondly its the same blockstreamers who want to treat anything not blockstream as an altcoin, and them same blockstreamers were the ones screaming that a HF would lead to 8gb blocks very soon..

it does make me laugh, in regards to pretending core is independant while simultaneously protecting blockstream by saying if its not part of the blockstream roadmap then its an altcoin..

im guessing bitcoinLJr.exe is a client for a altcoin?
im guessing bitcore is also an altcoin?

oh wait they are different implementations, but wrote by blockstreamers so you will categorize them as part of bitcoin.
well they are part of bitcoin.. not due to the blockstream connection, but due to them interacting with bitcoins genesis and blockdata

but speaking of a  "independant coder wanting a hardfork" must be an altcoin
i cannot wait until i see you defend LukeJrs harkfork to reduce difficulty and switch to sha3.. now that is going to take some meandering and back tracking on your part to convince people that hardforks are suddenly good..

the hypocrisy is loud in the blockstream camp.
"we dont want a HF because hardforks are bad. but if you dont accept a softfork we will do a hardfork, but not to give the community what it needs, instead to render sha256 mining useless"

the only people making altcoins is blockstream.. and they have been very public about it.
i just find it a shame that blockstream paid coders are resorting to blackmailing pools and bribing users to try squeezing segwit in before their private investment tranche deadline passes. as its becoming obvious the roadmap is more geared towards the private investment contract rather than bitcoin communities desires

I think everyone knows who the shill is in this thread.

yes jonald, the people demonstrably misrepresenting the truth.


You're one of them, GTFO and take your nasty looking hunchbacked avatar with you, you've already been told

Worth reading,

HaoBTC.
https://medium.com/@HaoBTC/a-call-for-core-developers-to-clarify-their-stance-on-2mb-hard-fork-d6797ddbed8c#.86cgl0lhg

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016."

"Now with June approaching its end and June a few days away, there has been increasing concern whether the Core devs are ready to deliver on their promise, or any effort have been made during the past months towards this end. Some may feel compelled to ask: Were the Core devs who signed the document sincere in their promise or just squeezing the situation for all it’s worth?"

The miners are service providers. They don't have a say in how Bitcoin develops. They have a say in how their mine operates, because it's theirs. The codebase is not theirs to change, and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Take the hint.



Has anyone noticed how the 2MB2MB2MB shills never post anywhere except in threads that let them propagate their dev team coup propaganda? You'd think they'd be active all over Bitcoin, seeing as they're such genuine fellas, huh? ;D

I would be interested in hearing from the people who were part of that agreement. The other Core developers do not have to voice themselves as they're not part of it.

They shouldn't have a say in it, unless they're actively contributing indeed. They are free to decide whether they want to run those changes or not.

I've noticed that. They usually have no contributions in any way or form.

I do.


And backed up by a completely ridiculous statement from staff in support.

RealBitcoin, how can anyone debate with this?
This thread was linked on Blockchain.info yesterday.
This circus was on full display. (maybe that is why someone made 15 ad hom bs posts)

How many times: it's not ad hominem when it's true

if miners are just service providers then core devs are just service providers

and its users who have bitcoins(funds) that are the ultimate owners of bitcoin(brand)...
wait.. miners own bitcoins(funds).. hmm so miners do have a say. atleast a bigger say then core dev's who are only holding a big bag of fiat and only doing nasty things purely to release the next tranche of fiat..

wait.. i can predict you are about to say that blockstream owns bitcoin(brand)... go on. say it. get to the crux of your whole rhetoric that blockstream rule supreme, i know you want to




now with that all said, lets get back to the topic at hand. the blocksize debate.

we all know that the the reasons against a hardfork is getting thinner and thinner, especially now that it has begun to resort to blackmail and bribery to push segwit on users(including miners).

so the options left is very simple.
because the next "big" implementation needs 95% acceptance. its definitely a perfect time to include the extra code to allow users and miners more potential capacity for natural unhindered growth. without endlessly having to upgrade every few months.

No the developers are designers. Anyone can do what the miners do: I was mining for a long time. I expect even you could strap a mining rig together, Franky

The miners and users own their capital: BTC or mining equipment. They don't own the network: the economic majority does. If you were such a big pockets 'Coiner Franky, you would have no need to spread your propaganda: you could just wait till some miner consortium tries to force a fork (much predicted, never happens), then use your massive BTC stash to short sell Core.

But you haven't got any Bitcoins, so instead, you're here talking shit.

Likewise all your garbage about Segwit: there are practical, real world steps you could take yourself to prove your BS. Just get on testnet and carry out all the exploits and flaws you've "identified" on a running implementation, then you could prove all your little theories!

Except you and no-one else has, because it's all hot air propaganda. You're a sad, disgusting little man who lies for a living, face it.

thank you for proving my point. that miners do have a bigger say in what direction bitcoin should go
especially when the majority of the hoards on exchanges that can "sellout" are miners and users,

the real funny part is that miners and users dont need to use their funds to "sellout" if they dont like core.. they simply just dont use core..
no need to sell bitcoin to prove a point. much easier to just not use core and let core get the hint in a proper way

but i am shocked you didnt take your rhetoric in the real direction you wanted, that blockstream rules supreme
so i guess you concede that developers are service providers too and their service is "designing"

edit:
and now i see carlton fail once more at a logical rebuttle and so pretends im bought by a corporation.. thats funny
carltons ultimate mindset. if anyone is not a sheep for the blockstream corp, they must be paid by other corps

comedy gold

Franky, shut up. Reading your posts is such a waste of time, I'm amazed anyone pays you for this poor performance. @Franky's employer: dock his pay or sack him, he's useless

Alright then (you asked)


Miners own hashing hardware. And some controllers, and possibly also their own Bitcoin node (even you, Franky, are cognizant of the fact that some large miners don't even run one node of their own)

And so they own the hardware that hashes; take them away and there is no network. And the same proposition is true of every other component of the Bitcoin network: full node operators, wallet service users, and the Bitcoin economy itself.

Take away:

• wallet users: no network
• node operators: no network
• the miners: no network
• the Bitcoin economy (which you, Franky, have yet to demonstrate you participate in): no network

All these variously tangible and intangible elements constitute the network, not just one element in isolation. But that's you all over Franky; using simplistic subversive portrayals of the real picture to push your agenda.


Now, fuck off. For the love of god.

take away miners.. blocks dont get made..
take away core and things continue, (everyone stays with 0.12)

ergo miners remaining and doing something is more important than core doing something.

yes you may argue that new miners can come in to get block creation going again..
but the network can live without core. but cant live without the miners.

and yes core can be replaced if users and miners want something designed. again making core less important than miners

and now you see why i am not blindly devoted to core.. because they are not the owners of bitcoin, nor as essential to bitcoin as you subtly portray with your rhetoric.
also strange that you would advocate killing off miners before killing off core.. especially with the different mindset you had 2013-2015, which was at that time more humble about non corporate, non-control, open usability

Lukejnr in reply, (snipped)

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q6ryh?context=3

"Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)"

"There was no hardfork promised (not even all the Core dev team has authority to do that), only code that could be recommended for one. (This also was made VERY clear.)"

"The hardfork proposal promised was not a "2 MB hardfork", but a hardfork that would include as one minor change, the ability to include up to 2 MB of current witness-included-in-txid (anyone-can-malleate) transactions."

"Miners have no leverage to make demands. If they attempt to hardfork without community consensus, they harm only themselves, while Bitcoin moves on without them. (At least for my part, my goal of the agreement was to end division and argumentation, which did not happen, admittedly not because of the fault of many of the agreement participants.)"

"The July 2016 estimate was not part of the agreement, and certainly not a deadline. It was (at the time) a reasonable expectation based on the agreement terms."

"Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties)."


Looks like the miners have been conned.
Just like the rest of us.

I'm ready to hardfork HaoBTC.
I think you will have little objection.

Not really Franky, because then the miners would be designing the software (bizarre tangent you're on here, incidentally, but what should we expect lol) under your scenario, and they've already demonstrated that they're plugging-cables-in and command-line-admin kinda guys. If you want cryptocurrency like that, choose from the 1000's of altcoins out there, exactly the same type of give-it-a-try developers dev those coins.



Incidentally, how do you manage to use expressions like "ergo", yet can't spell "rebuttal"? Or punctuate your sentences (at all)? Your mask is slipping ;D

Stop talking and do it.
Talk, talk talk, nothing but talk for 18 months and counting.



I'm telling you: do it now.  Right now. Then we'll see who's who for real.
But you're a bunch of cowards, you can't take anyone much to speak of with you. Hence the waffle.

Contrasted with the white paper:

https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png

They ask this guy to provide the HF code??

https://i.imgur.com/CunIiLC.png
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q3793

Gluttons for punishment, these "service providers".

 

Yeah, because this place is filled with insightful commentary from barely literate sig spammers:

Halving is a profitable???  New « 1 2 ... 40 41 »
du you spend coins on real life.  New « 1 2 ... 50 51 »
Do u know how can i have one bitcoin?  New « 1 2 ... 96 97 »

[Also, dev coup? Lol, it's open source software. It doesn't have anointed permanent devs, read the whitepaper again, and du try to understand it this time. :)]

Hmmm, interesting distraction post. Well, when I say interesting, I mean tepid.


Re: inadequate context about miners place in the ecosystem from the Satoshi white paper

Yep, and the users vote too, as do the merchants, as do the node operators. Maybe you should read the whole white paper, not just your favourite sentence ;D


Re: Lukejr's insights to network load

He's right. He coded very significant parts of the Bitcoin we use already.


Re: dev coup

So, you're happy to let Core team implement your preferred hard fork, right? Oh, you want the Core team replaced with a different dev team to implement your hard fork? And that's not a dev team coup? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.

They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:

my "scenario" is that there is going to become a point where the software doesn't need changing. but miners will always be needed

lets take your former admiration for a blocksize increase last year, for instance.
if we went the route of BU (which if you wash away your false accusations of, would realise i am in favour of too) then core wont be needed to define how and when a hard fork happens because users and miners can change the settings without needing core to make new code again. as it would be part of a setting option.

but the short of it.
miners will be needed non stop for as long as bitcoin remains.. be it a few decades or centuries (no one knows). but core AKA blockstream can disappear and are not as required. so relying on them and blindly devoting yourself to their bait and switches, blackmails and bribes is not a good thing for bitcoin.

and as for my grammar and spelling.
you say tom8o i say tom@o they both mean the same thing

this is not a scholar website graded based on grammar
i type my thoughts as if i am talking with my voice, and its the context and content that means more than the presentation.
yes i can waste time proof reading. but trying to proof read something wasted on you, is a waste.

have a nice day.

If there is consensus, the risk is small.

Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like.
I thought you were calling for calm?

There isn't a consensus (for now). And also there are other risks as well, like the all nodes uppgrading to similar client, which exposes the network to 0 day exploits.

Also the network propagation time is also problematic.

And many other.

It's a collection of multiple issues that comes up when you talk about hardfork.

"Also the network propagation time is also problematic" is not a hf problem.

"And many other", please tell me a few.

same can be said for softforks


its only dangerous if one group of devs says no to cause contention by making it no longer a unanimous change by everyone... not due to any rational reason of what the users want. but purely about keeping a "political" grip of control of what direction only they want to take bitcoin.

in short.. if core released a 2mb or BU codebase.. then they could just let the users decide to take it up or not.. because all other implementations will work together
but by not releasing it they are limiting options and causing the controversy that actually makes a hard fork dangerous. and instead wanting to add code that takes bitcoin in a different direction and blackmail and bribe people into accepting core as the dominant central repo..

hard forks are only controversial because core is making it so

Miners must take the wishes and interests of node operators, merchants, and exchanges into account when making their decisions. That was the genius element of satoshi’s idea, it uses economic incentives [even indirect ones] to govern itself and grow, not an infallible priesthood of devs and their friend who holds key domain names. Satoshi didn’t include PoS type holder voting because it isn’t necessary, miners are rewarded or punished by the market for their decisions. Holders, merchants, node operators are important, by proxy, because they interact with the exchange rate.


If he’s right (and not just lying to suit himself)… then why is he full steam ahead with segwit, which will take total potential data load per block to 4MB?


I don’t actually care who the code comes from. I care that Bitcoin isn’t turned into some “proof of unanimous dev-consensus” coin. I would like the producers of block space, the miners, to determine their own production levels based on their own supply curve and the demand curve they face. Block space has been turned into a perfectly inelastic product via a centrally planned production quota, in stark contrast to the free market principles upon which Bitcoin was designed.

https://nicholasincollege.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/pes_0.gif

There are many others i read about, but i dont know all of them, i`m not a tech expert.


Softfork is not as invasive, and has far less power over bitcoin.


I dont see a problem here, the Core team so far has lead bitcoin very well. You cant just have the "people" vote on things they dont understand, you need experts, specialists, engineers , PhD's to lead in such a technological enviroment.

You cannot have babysitters or bartenders vote on bitcoin's technical roadmap :D

lol, for scenario, read "fantasy land"

Software always changes, Franky, Gavin Andresen will tell you that. You're an idiot. Give up.

I agree, this is what i described in the OP





True but you have to admit that they are the worlds best experts on bitcoin, nobody knows bitcoin better than them.

Most people here dont even know what a hash is, let alone decide rationally about very complex tech stuff. Democracy won't work for bitcoin, it will end in disaster.

I've literally told you once already: Satoshi presided over the dev team that built up around him, and never indicated in any way that he disapproved, or that it contradicted his ideas or feelings on the ideal way to structure development.

When you've already been told, but you keep repeating the same nonsense expressed slightly differently, you've gotta be either stupid or trolling. Care to enlighten us all as to which?


Uh, because Segwit balances that load unevenly? Hence Segregated? ::)



The 21 million money supply limit is also a centrally planned, perfectly inelastic demand curve. The free market principles are what Bitcoin is supposed to manifest itself as after it's coded and compiled, not within the coding process itself.

You're arguing for everyone to try their hand at being a crypto-central bank: guess what would happen with 7 billion different crypto-coins on the market? The best design would bury all the others. And you'd presumably start bleating: "But muh free-markets! Let's go back to a 7 billion person commitee again!!!" ::)

Satoshi left a long time ago. Feel free to cite where he said development should be done by one insular group of people and in one repo. I'll endeavor to not return your childish insults in kind.


So, hordes of zombie nodes that don't upgrade and no longer verify all the activity on the Bitcoin network (and don't know anything has changed) are a positive. OK. I disagree. Soft forks are done by miners only and circumvent the consent of all node operators, a bad precedent, IMO. Especially if you are so "concerned" about the immutability of the protocol.


Miners could change the 21 million coin limit, they would face serious economic consequences for that. They could also increase the throughput of Bitcoin, which they might be rewarded for. I get that you don't like the white paper's definition of CPU led consensus, why not start an altcoin that does away with it in reality, rather than just in your mind?


The miners aren’t idiots, they know what a hash is, they understand how Bitcoin works, and they have millions of $ of investment riding on them making decisions that are in the best interest of Bitcoin, measured in exchange rate and utility.

Some devs, the Blockstream ones specifically, have millions of $ of other peoples’ investment riding on them creating an environment in which their products (side chains, payment contracts, etc) are in demand. An artificially constrained on-chain environment directly benefits them, it’s not hard to understand.

This is the reason satoshi described consensus the way he did in the white paper. The miners interests are aligned perfectly with the success of Bitcoin. Satoshi could have included “a strong consensus of the most technically knowledgable developers” in the white paper, he didn’t, and I don’t think it was an accident.

I`m not talking about the miners, althought their interest might not always coincide with bitcoins especially when they will get political pressure on them...

I`m talking about the usual folks that want to earn 9000% Returns in 1 day from cloud mining. These people might not care about bitcoin's long term, and not even hold significant amount of bitcoins to be relevant.

Remember bitcoin is a financial organization, not a political one, money talks here not empty words.

Well, ponzi enthusiasts and sig spammers don't make decisions here, it isn't a democracy. The decision making process is outlined here:

https://i.imgur.com/UxrfOqo.png

If some don't like a decision, they can dump. If others like a decision, they can buy. These are the indirect economic incentives I'm talking about.

And so you spend all day quoting him for what reason? Near every major Core team member worked alongside Satoshi for several years.


Satoshi literally watched that happen. Are you deaf or dumb?


You may have to endeavour a little harder lol. duhhhhhhhhhh


Bad precedent? Like the half a dozen+ soft forks that have already been successfully activated? Yeah ::)


Why don't you start the altcoin motherfucker? There's nothing wrong with CPU led consensus, you just don't care about the fact that it is not the only factor when it doesn't suit your argument. Because you do actually understand that POW is not the only mechanism determining which version of the software prevails on the network, you've proved you already understand that.

And miners could force your 2MB2MB2MB fork also. Interesting how that hasn't happened, huh? Despite the supposed "reward"

satoshi left 2010..... yet

LukeJR - github joined october 2011
Gmaxwell - github joined june 2011
pieter wuille - github joined january 2011
adam back turned up 2013

just to name just a few..

blockstream was formed 2013-2014

meaning satoshi didnt witness the centralization of bitcoin core.

have a nice day

Nope, Satoshi actually left in 2011, shortly after Gavin Andresen announce his trip to Langley HQ (where your paycheck ultimately comes from, remember them?). Shortly after I got into Bitcoin, in fact.

"Centralisation of core" is a meaningless statement when you look at the facts. I gonna make this real simple, just for you:

Satoshi

was

there

when

the

dev

team

assumed

it's

structure.

It's

the

same

structure

all

open

source

software

projects

use.


And Adam Back has been in cryptocurrency a long time, he's cited as a reference in the Satoshi white paper (and is indeed a plausible candidate for actually being Satoshi)

Good!

At least we have settled that issue.

Because sometimes I feel that bunch of socialists are invading bitcoin that want a 'democratization' of bitcoin, which is silly because it's not a political organization to begin with.

You can't democratically vote my money out of my pocket, that is called theft!

You're wrong RealBitcoin! Don't you realise, that when a handful of sockpuppets spend month after month repeating-repeating-repeating that 100% of Bitcoin users, miners and merchants all want 2MB2MB2MB, that means it's a fait accomplis!

We do get to vote on what happens to Bitcoin, and I vote for 5000 BTC, for me! Hurray democracy!

Maybe we need a more transparent platform to publish our ideas on, to filter out trolls.

I have already proposed an idea:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1384124.0

You guys read reddit?  Looks like the HK consensus is DOA.  Bitcoin might take a hit.

Everyone can choose what code to run.   The miners are largely in control because the rest of the community
will probably follow their lead unless they do something highly irrational.  So far the miners have chosen
not to buck the status quo and follow the leadership of core.

I don't like what's going on with core/blockstream but all I can do is voice my opinion.
If I was a miner I would run bitcoin unlimited.

A while ago, coinbase and many other companies signed onto support 8mb blocks.
But that didn't get traction.  So, perhaps something else will come up.

I really do not approve of the centralized development.  I think
there shouldn't be any blocksize limit.  We can worry about
fees in a few decades.

@RealBitcoin

I'd accept that idea as a separate blockchain, but the idea of time-locking some quantity of funds when there is nothing at stake irrespective of how much BTC is locked..... I don't see the logic behind that. Why vote with 1BTC, when the vote is non-binding anyway? What happens when exuberantly wealthy Bitcoiners with highly eccentric proclivities vote for correspondingly bizarre proposals? (those people demonstratively exist, lol)

Perhaps it could work as a separate blockchain, but you've gotta have one person<>one vote, and that depends on an identity system. I think your motive is admirable, but I think you need to work on the game theory behind the incentives in such a system. Transparent signalling of intent is a good idea in principle.

I quote him because his design for Bitcoin was correct, and is what the majority of us got interested in. You have tried, and failed, to convince me that his intention was to have Gregory Maxwell's hand on the lever of a critical variable in the protocol.


No citation of where he said it was a design decision of any importance, got it.


I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings with that zinger, Carlton.


Yes, those. Subverting the consent of nodes 6 times doesn't make it any better on the 7th time.


I accept that the current CPU led consensus is for 1MB blocks. I also would accept a Bitcoin where it had been raised by CPU consensus. PoW is the mechanism, and it doesn't happen in a vacuum, which is why I describe the indirect economic incentive structure that underlies it.

Yes but you dont understand the difference between individual choice and democracy, its not the same.

Individual choice = I use what I want
Democratic choice = The majority forces you to use what they want

There is a big difference


But you are not so what then? You can still vote with your coins. If you dont like BTC you can buy LTC for example

Vote with your money is much more fair than other decisions.



That is not very rational. We need to think for long term. Keynesian thinking is very wrong.

How many times today are we going to have to correct something you wrote an entire paragraph about, correctly? ::)


PoW is not the only mechanism.


As for the rest of your troll replies, pfffffffff. You're just perusing the exact bent logic you've used already, or simply putting heavily exaggerated words in my mouth. Trolling, whichever way you try to dice it.

He who has the money , has the power. Money is a strategic organization of the finite resources of our planet, if he can move a lot of resources, he by definition has a lot of power, that has to be respected (even if you dont like it).

Bitcoin is money. Therefore if a person has many bitcoin, he by definition has a  lot of power over bitcoin.



Yes i need to clear up the OP of that thread, and reformulate my idea, a lot of new things have came into my mind, but i just simply dont have the time now to write a lenghty article about that. But i will rewrite it and then see what comes out of it.

I don't know, your first reply above is a pretty convincing appraisal of your original idea (and you've had some time to distill that rhetoric since you originally came up with the idea).

It should be tried. It's possible that the information it produces could be more influential than I can currently account for... it should be tried. Find a willing coder, better still, do the coding yourself.

https://i.imgur.com/b6cxgux.png
2010


wait next your going to say that satoshi loved using github
welll sorry to burst your biased ignorant and unresearched bubble

he prefered sourceforge.
even on his very last active day he wasnt uploading anything to the core github repo
https://i.imgur.com/9wkXgrx.png

and wait for it... i can predict your next fail.. so ill just save u the trouble.

"core" was envisioned after satoshi left.. while satoshi was around it was simply bitcoin QT..
satoshi did not decide to throw everything into one repo location
satoshi did not decide to build a corporation to pay devs
satoshi did not decide to call it core..

the only reason you are twisting things is to attempt to make people think that centralization is good. as long as you have a couple people unpaid who just do some grammar corrections of the userguide to make it not seem centralized because dozens of people that make mini edits makes the dozen elitists seem less elite

atleast grow a back bone and own your assumptions and desires of corporate control. rather then faking your desire for decentralization and then be dead against anything thats not blockstream central

Unlimited, or big enought blocksize to not create artifical limit doesnt mean miners wont earn enought fees at all.

I already see many miners have set minimum fee per KB to even include your transaction to the block. You can often check this fee treshold when non full block is mined, then you might see like minimum 10 satoshi per byte is required (or other value), and no transactions with lower fees added even though there are many in mempool and block space left.

So miners are not dumb and they often setting fee per KB required - so they going to collect reasonable fees no matter whether the blocksize limit is not artifically restricted.

as for realbitcoins idea about voting using coins

id say its good in theory to let people who hold alot, to have a say
rather than just 13 main devs
or
rather than just 20 main pools
or
rather than just 6000 nodes

but here is something im afraid to say that me and carlton would probably agree on
coinbase will use their vault funds to make a large vote for their own single CEO mindset. instead of the 2million users individual votes/mindsets if they didnt put their funds into coinbases control.
same goes for other exchanges. the CEO's one voice may contradict the voice of their own users.

so any decision should not be based purely on one small demograph

People should hold their coins in their own wallets FFS.

I cannot understand these idiots who would rather have a 3rd party taking care of his money. We will end up with bitcoin banks then...

agreed
but thats where the devs should be more concentrating on making things "granny friendly" to increase individual usability rather than trying to complicate things in favour of non bitcoin use (sidechains).

take for instance buzzwords like "bi-directional payment channels"
the actual fact is that the technology is simply multisignature transactions

also blockstream are making "liquid". so that users of exchanges dont need to withdraw bitcoin from exchanges and instead transfer funds internally to different exchanges using a different protocol. kinda funny

I didn't need to research that, I knew already.


Github was nowhere in 2009 when Satoshi started Bitcoin. I don't think it even existed, care to do the research on that one, Franky? You are good for something after all :D. I have better things to do with my time

You haven’t corrected me on anything, not for lack of trying. PoW is the mechanism by which miners reach consensus on the correct version of the chain, full stop.

There are direct and indirect economic forces that inform, punish, or award these choices, as I have described upthread.


If anyone was trolled today, it was the miners who made a “grand consensus” agreement with “individuals” in Hong Kong. I bet they feel quite foolish today, they made an effort at a good faith compromise… only, months later, these “individuals” have spit in their faces, some via comment, some via lack thereof. I’d be reconsidering the wisdom of putting my future in the hands of these guys right about now.

Only if they're perusing logic, tho.

meanwhile in a totally different subject, carlton flips his mindset for one moment to make the main point i have been saying for years


i think carlton needs to be called "flip flop".. because he likes to flip around words.. but when he tries defending blockstream dominance.. he flops

The bigger debate is "does a healthy fee market exist with no blocksize limit". Some have argued it does and even written papers on it (Peter R).
But even if they are wrong, it should not be a concern in 2016...and surprise surprise, it is (to Blockstream).

forcing a fee war is not a concern today for the miners. they are already happily compensated and will continue to be compensated for decades.

but even in the medium term of the next 2-4 years. trying to drag people over to sidechains and LN is not really proving that blockstream cares about giving BITCOIN pools a nice fee bonus. or doing what they can to ensure bitcoin miners continue running to keep at a high enough difficulty to protect bitcoins blockdata..
its too obvious that the roadmap and all the "game theory" buzzword flops have nothing to do with strengthening bitcoin.. but more so a simple bait and switch game.

the reality is more obvious..  they want to make bitcoins blockchain feel unusable in the next couple years to push people offchain.
along with that we have already seen them blackmail miners, risking the difficulty of 7 years of hashpower growth.. over what.. well thats obvious

the "agenda" is not a usable bitcoin blockchain. but instead locking funds to become unusable onchain as a stepping stone to get users used to not using bitcoins onchain network and then creating new value on alternate chains, making the locking of bitcoins more permanent.. where miners would then switch over to protect the other chains and ultimately kill off bitcoin, because everyones using the altcoin.

they have set milestones they need to hit to make all that happen. and tranches of private investment that will release at each of those milestones.

one of which is by core offering "pruned" "no witness" mode as an attempt to reduce the full node count. along with telling the community there is no real need to upgrade as everything is backward compatible..
strange to tell 6000 people who want to be dedicated full nodes, that they dont need to upgrade thus not retain full validating status..
full nodes want to be full nodes because .. they want to be full nodes.. its simple..

features such as pruned/no-witness should be only available for nextgen versions of electrum or multibit and all the other lightnodes. not available for core. as that is making anyone using them features in core, simply a false node and not helping the network.

but all we will see is more insulting defensive cries from carlton and then most probably a message from lauda backing carlton up, followed by carlton quoting lauda in some celebratory manner that they both admire each others opinion.

i feel sorry for those deep in the blockstream defense party.

But you dont realize that a softfork is a softwork, meaning that anyone can implement it.

If green martians would start using bitcoin and code for themselves a softworked lightweight mode then they can already do that.

Any softfork patch, is just saying that anyone can do that ,and requires no consensus. Just as you can code anything softly and run your own client.

There is no way to prevent people using electrum, multibit or pruned node. Its open source code!

---

However when you require a hardfork, then you need the miners participation, because then you are actually creating an altcoin, that can only become bitcoin if all miners and exchanges swap to it.

Not everybody is tech savvy.  That's one big thing holding BTC adoption back.

well that pisses me right off and should piss off just about every bitcoiner.

You dont have to be. It's not like you have to code your wallet yourself.

You just download it from a website, and figure things out foryourself. Optionally transfer like 10000 satoshi to it and play around with that until you get used to it.

It's very simple with Electrum, one of the simplest wallets, even simpler with mobile phone wallets.

There is just no excuse for not being able to control your money, those people that held their coins in Gox and Criptsy, did really deserve that. But people dont learn and many more shit like that will happen.

did you not get the memo.. for segwit to really succeed it requires pools to be using it, otherwise they wont add a segwit transaction to their block attempts.
yea once its in a block non-upgrades can look passed it. but to actually get segwit transactions into a block, requires pools to fully validate the transaction and accept it.
and thats why it is now become public that mining pools need to show 95% acceptance to upgrade. and ofcourse why blockstream is blackmailing them if they dont accept..
so while there is a 95% requirement for an upgrade and a X week time period for the other 5%.. you might aswell take that perfect opportunity to add the hard fork code..
after all fullnodes will want to be full nodes after an upgrade anyway.

and even better.. once the codebase has been upgraded. the actual USAGE(activation) of features such as segwit and a bump in the blocksize can actually be set for whenever they like. EG segwit 2 weeks and blocklimit 6 months.. knowing that it only require people to download 0.13 to get both, rather than 0.13 and later a re-run of consensus to get 0.14 going.. where your own argument begins again with 0.14.

its simple logic, and requires no blackmail. just put in the code but if afraid of it not being "secure" have the blocklimit bump delayed a bit longer.. but atleast have the code publicly available soon/now so there is no controversy. and lots of time to check it over

as i said and many others have said its only a controversy if its not available. make it available and the only thing left to cry about is the timing of activation.

we understand the sentements and we would all love to get our relatives to use bitcoin locally instead of centrally. but its still not user friendly.
even things like microsoft office have a little tutorial. and bitcoin needs to be more user friendly and more intuitive than microsoft word.

EG not needing to use commands to dump privkey. probably even renaming it from "wallet" to "key ring". making it automatically taught that the most important thing is the private key/seed.

Well if you put it like that, maybe. The main website does talk about block size limit increase, but to my knowledge its currently debated.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

Many engineers and academics have come out and said that blocksize increase is not feasable. But we need more research on this.

What's the point?

When I first downloaded electrum ,i figured out to use it in 2 minutes, with no tutorial or any other documentation.

Maybe it's just because I have an IQ of 141, and with an IQ of 70 it's really hard to figure out how stuff works.

But i think its very very simple. I do know to code a little, and i am somewhat experienced with PC interface, but so do most people, especially younger folks.

Any person with half a brain can really learn it in max 1-2 days, even if they are totally new. There are tutorials, helpful people on this forum, and the official documentation if you want to dig deeper.

There is really no excuse for not learning it, its so basic, you dont need a diploma.

But I just see that there are many dumb people in the world that are as intelligent as a stone, but i hope that bitcoin and other decentralized projects will teach people to be more familiar with open source software and digital stuff.

firstly that was the golden promise of december 2015.. but in recent months that has been backtracked. even carlton has shown that lukejr and core and blockstream are pretending it was never a guarantee.

anyway, those academics..

lol "2mb is bad" right??
but 2.8 good? (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/000001d950f2801b6539d62aaa71a52bce131d437d22fdbb182e332eb21cc1cf)
but 2.8 good? (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/000000ddf050de21b895ff687102211806ef2322143c1bea2638490e696f6e56)
but 2.7 good? (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/00000056a6d930e62f81108f43b490931c9722a324a71b7e959fd03fb6be0580)
but 2.7 good? (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000000077e62f36a6e2e748cca6f5cd543ce3d1aa29ee83f1cfd584c6fad078)
but 2.8 good? (https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/block/0000019cf0e635db7bc894f1006369f128132e5e938857d99396309c9b1c99ee)

here ill give you some info..
people livestream their online gaming sessions while in a VOIP with their friends and also narrating to viewers of the livestream and i dont hear complaints from youtube or twitch or livestream that the internet isnt good enough for uploads

but here goes.. doomsday bottom of the line internet users..

0.5mbit upload = 37.5mBYTE per 10 minutes.
so even at a minimum. a low level node can have a couple connections without issue.
but we all know those who want to be full dedicated nodes will have better internet than the minimum.

as for the validation processing..
bitcoin works fine on a v1 raspberry Pi.. guess what raspberry Pi has evolved.. so even using raspberry Pi as a baseline benchmark, it can cope.
even with the stuff like libsecp256k1 makes the baseline rasberry Pi happy.
but if having the other stuff aswell as the blocklimit all combined into 0.13.. then its all good

the challenge bitcoin "wallets" have is the "give it to your grandma and see if she calls you all hours of the day" test
now thats how simple bitcoin needs to be.

EG LN is coming soon. so making a multisig really does need to become like childsplay. or more precise, grannies 'bridge' play..
telling someone they need to log into a forum and ask a community for support. is not something that should be advertised as what makes bitcoin great.

bitcoin wallet providers (offline ones of course) need to up their game otherwise people wont waste a couple days searching forums. they would rather sign up to crap like exchanges to "manage" the funds... far before signing up to a forum

Let's be honest, the old people will never jump 100% into new tech, it just doesnt work that way.

Only the young people have a chance to learn something completely new and use it in their lives.

I didnt seen any old people using smartphones, heck most of them dont even have phones.

Technology just progresses too fast for people to keep up with.

However the modern PC has been around for 30 years, so that should not be a very hard step to take.

---

The wallets are simple, they only have buttons, menus and texboxes, who is so dumb that cant figure that out?

You dont need the console, nor multisig for the average user. They just want to send and receive money.

Most of these smart contracts and advanced features will only be used by 1-2% of users, the rest of them will stay basic.

atleast your in agreement that LN wont be a big deal and that not everyone will need or have to use it, but if it was to be used widely then it needs to become simple.
after all it took 30 years for computers to become simplified down from needing a command prompt. to being just a swipe of a finger.

bitcoin is not yet in the same simplicity stage as swiping a screen. and that is why people will be relying on 3rd parties too much. because their GUI is better than the full desktop locally stored privkey/seed versions

You trolling fuck, you know entirely well that I'm separating out PoW from economic forces as multiple mechnanisms exactly what you're describing when you say "indirect economic forces". Those are mechanisms too. And they're the same mechanisms that have stopped your 2MB2MB2MB bullshit.



You're the troll supreme: arguing that black is white, and simultaneously black. "PoW is the only mechanism....... uh, except all the other ones. It's the only one! As well as the others! IT'S THE ONLY MECHANISM! oh, but others exist too" ::)

ROFLMAO Franky, you're now researching: me


You're just one such example of someone claiming to represent the "real" Bitcoin, Franky. But you're right of course: Core is the closest thing there is to official Bitcoin. In fact, IT IS THE OFFICAL BITCOIN YOU MORON. Remember, you and your buddies want that to change so the system is in permanent conflict?


Because there is only one set of consensus rules in the client, and you and your big banking buddies desperately want those rules to change, because your money system is in danger of losing alot of important markets (contraband, remittance, offshore banking etc). I mean, does anyone out there seriously expect the most well established and profitable form of gangsterism not to fight back against it's new competitor? Well, Franky and his friends (read: sockpuppets) are that fightback.

your words apply to you and your buddies. you are either well aware of it and trying to distract people from seeing it too with your bait and switch tactics.. or your too devoted to look beyond your blind faith of corporate dominance

please ask gmaxwell what are the terms and conditions of releasing the next tranche of FIAT funding

have a nice day

LN handles all the payment channels without user intervention, to the lay user a transaction will look even simpler than today, as any change amounts or channel activity won't be directly exposed unless the user really wants to look, it's not going to make sense to an uninformed observer. Do you think that might be why you're so capable of understanding it, Franky? The uninformed part?

Why not ask gmaxwell yourself about plans to use Schnorr signatures, MAST scripts (and god knows how many other efforts he leads in crypto-coin research) to improve privacy and scalability even further? If Greg or Lukejr or Pieter Wuille or any of these other bete noires of yours are such bankster collborators, how come everything they're doing looks like cutting edge privacy work/carefully engineered network scaling to every other expert in the field? Even to Gavin Andresen? Oh no, that's right, pre-eminient world renowned cryptography and network software engineer Franky1 doesn't agree, because PwC funding?



Incidentally Franky, how does this happen, explain:

Franky1 Re: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns
Today at 06:48:17 AM



Franky1 Re: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns
Today at 09:22:36 AM




How come you're already up and out of bed? I thought you were "just an ordinary English bloke"? Let's be honest (or at least realistic), one of the other Frankys with access to the Franky1 account took the reins while the other Franky gets a little rest. Shall I call you Franky2? lol

seems that your over use of "payment channels" and "change amounts" goes to show you lack understanding of LN.

here is a simple lesson

2 nodes independently create a pub/priv keypair.
they then find each other to tell each other, only the public keys. they create a multisig address using them public keys and send that multisig address to each other to make sure they both calculated the keys to the same multisig properly.

then both users decide how much they want to "lock in" to the multisig by simply making an ONCHAIN transaction each to that multisig address.
this then becomes a combined pot of funds

then privately(offchain) they make a new transaction using the multisig funds to pay out what they owe eachother. once the values are agreed they both sign it and both keep a copy privately (not transmitted to the public blockchain)

which is why i laughed when you said "change amounts". because its not "change", its more the case of withdrawal, or just payment.

then on different occasions they can just renegotiate who owes what and make a new transaction to pay out what they owe eachother, once agreed its signed and the previously private held transaction is dropped and this new tx is held as the most current one.

in short if you take away all the buzzwords.. its simply automated escrow.

Yep. It was you that attempting to suggest otherwise when you claimed ordinary users don't/can't use multi-sig: you've (that is, Franky 2, to be precise ;D) just spent another rambling paragraph explaining how your own rhetoric about LN being too complicated for normal users is BS. Ordinary users don't need to know how to use multi sig when the automated escrow takes care of it for them, huh?


I like your new, entirely different way of punctuating and arranging your sentences in posts, it's almost like you're a different "Franky". lol

Can you explain Franky2, er, I mean Franky1, how you managed to go to bed after 6:48am GMT, and then started posting again at 9:28 am GMT?


Did you get your full night's sleep, get up, do your 16 hour working day on a working day of the week (because you're just a regular English fella, remember?), then get on bitcointalk to post, all in less than 3 hours? hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. hmmmmm.

i know you have not left your basement in a while. but real people do this thing called "travel"..
you should try it.
you know go to different timezones, meet new people.
you might actually enjoy it..

... wait
you cant buy plane tickets with monero.. sorry i forgot.. i apologize for your lack of ability to travel due to the uselessness of your altcoin fascination.
but atleast i answered my own query about how you naively think people are stuck to a timezone they were born into.

but should you one day find a method to transfer your monero into a way to buy a plane ticket. i recommend going to a country with a bit of culture. it will help expand your mind beyond the small narrow experience you have currently had in that small corner of the world you live in.

as for my grammar, yea its called being an adult. some times i drink alcohol.
you will hopefully experience that in a couple years.

but nice try with your failed insults. its very much a shame that the only replies you can muster are not technical or logical or even factual.

but here is a smart idea.
how about address the topic properly. without a single insult. you might surprise yourself and actually have something valid to say for once.

anyway goodluck with your monero

Which means you've been posting since yesterday for ~19 hours straight!? (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15385768#msg15385768) hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Do you ever get any sleep? :D And if we are to believe your "different time zone right now" story, that puts you 9-10 hours ahead of GMT.... somewhere in South-East Asia?!?!? You speak South East Asian languages, then, huh Franky(s)? Come on, lie to me lol

Or are you an Australian posing as a Brit? Kiwi?

lol

so if im in asia i have to speak asian?? or if im in australia i cant be a brit..

you are funny.

but its now become obvious you have run out of concerns about the blocksize debate. so have a nice day

now back to the topic at hand.

seeing as segwit needs 95% consensus. it might aswell be during this upgrade opportunity that the blocksize code is also added.. but as i said before having it only activate when safe to do so. EG when pools decide they can make such blocks and also when they are secure in the knowledge that there is enough users who have upgraded to 0.13 to ensure the blocks wont get rejected/orphaned.

Interesting conclusion by Carlton that franky1 is either a superhuman or there's franky2. However, the thread went sideways. Time to get back to some relevant input.

This is correct for the majority of old people.

It is quite rare that older people are 'decent' with smartphones.

That is the case, especially for people who are not involved in IT. I'd say that modern computing has become very simplified for simple tasks and inexperienced users.

Maybe the design could be 'modernized', but aside from that I'd say that Bitcoin Core is a pretty simple wallet. Of course it has some advanced features, but regular users don't need to use those (the same applies for other wallets). If I were to recommend a wallet to someone that I know right now (who isn't tech-savy), I'd definitely take them on a route with SPV wallets first. Telling someone that they have to wait XX hours (for synchronization) and spend a lot of bandwidth and storage just to start using Bitcoin might turn them off.

So how is it that you managed to stay awake from 16:24 GMT on June 27th (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15385768#msg15385768), all the way to 10:59 GMT today (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1529833.msg15395520#msg15395520)? What sort of superhuman stays up posting multiple times per hour for over 18 hours? I get the feeling that We've Been Franked!!! yet again.



Franky, code your ideas up and make your own coin. Or submit them to the Bitcoin github. If your ideas are sssssso amazing, you'll get everyone supporting you and using your vision for cryptocurrency, right? But I predict you'll never do anything in the real Bitcoin world, let alone attempt to prove your nonsense. You've got one massive mouth and you never take any kind of action, about anything. Do something. Anything.

even you want to pretend that anything that interacts with bitcoins genesis and block data must be an altcoin if its not part of bitcoins github.
your last post is very clear on that along with your general rhetoric since last year

last year someone coded up an idea.. plopped it on bitcoins github.. they got kicked to the curb and then called an altcoin because they released it independently
this year someone coded up an idea.. plopped it on bitcoins github.. they got kicked to the curb and then called an altcoin because they released it independently
this year someone coded up an idea.. plopped it on bitcoins github.. they got kicked to the curb and then called an altcoin because they released it independently

then miners got together and organized some meetups.. not with random individuals ofcourse but with the main players to try and get some commitments out of them because obvious idea's were being slated as altcoins and corporate takeovers rather than logical discussions about bitcoins next direction..
but even after SEVERAL face to face discussions, hand shakes and signed agreements..
it got backtracked and said they cant even guarantee it.

we both know the only direction blockstream want to take bitcoin, if you really think that after so many attempts already to get a blocksize increase have failed, that suddenly something is going to change.. then you are just trying to poke the bear with the fake belief of bitcoin independence

remember every single big bitcoin player that has done exactly that has been pushed aside

i look forward to you start the buzzword campaign about bitcoinLjr being an altcoin in the next couple months. and finally start calling him a corporate sellout, as always

by the way can i get a timecheck please, sorry i was out and about for a few hours

Out and about? "You" have been awake, posting regularly for over 24 hours now, lol. How do you handle this, multiple power-naps in your deskchair? :D

you must be a toddler or an old man if sleep is your biggest concern.
but may i ask.
in a couple months will you be saying Luke Jrs release v0.13swhf(segwit+hardfork) is a altcoin and he should be thrown to the wolves?

Yes, you may ask.

It is a big deal, but it will need GUI interface to be useable, and it  will mostly run behind the scenes in important projects.

People dont need to understand it, but they will use it, without the need to understand it, if simple GUI comes out.

Just to get back on that and skip the blahblah.
All good with that?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837;sa=showPosts

Well, how do you like that? It's easy to get rid of all these Frankys, just point out that posting at least once every hour for 24 hours straight is just a little implausible for 1 man on his own ;D



(apologies to RealBitcoin, but this sock-puppet legion account known as Franky1 is an absolute plague on bitcointalk)


Come back Frankys, we miss you all! :D

been here all the time.

but its a kind of shame you like to derail the topic.

anyway answer the question
in a couple months, will you be saying that Luke Jrs "independent" release of bitcoin v0.13swhf(segwit+hardfork) is a altcoin and he should be thrown to the wolves,
just like you have done with any other implementation that was not pure blockstream?

So you've been awake... how long exactly? What's your secret? Modafinil? Oh no, you're a meth-head, silly me. No wonder your posts about technical matters sound more psychedelic than The Beatles on vacation at Salvador Dali's place :D

all i hear is whistles in the wind

anyway answer the question
in a couple months, will you be saying that Luke Jrs "independent" release of bitcoin v0.13swhf(segwit+hardfork) is a altcoin and he should be thrown to the wolves,
just like you have done with any other implementation that was not pure blockstream?

All I'm hearing is the same repeating-repeating-repeating tactics that you always use, and my god it's dull. Haven't you got any variation in the way you express yourself?

more insults from carlton while he avoids answering things related to the topic.

one more try
in a couple months, will you be saying that Luke Jrs "independent" release of bitcoin v0.13swhf(segwit+hardfork) is a altcoin and he should be thrown to the wolves,
just like you have done with any other implementation that was not pure blockstream?

Maybe if you just repeat yourself 1,000,000 times it will work? Only 999,995 more to go, Frankys. You can do it!

Great, op sounds fair and open minded, is open to criticism and wants to hear your opposing opinions.
Let's start debating this like civilised adults.  :D
But..



...if you debate against op's opinion you are a stupid and/or lying?

(ps, "But I hope troll posts or low intellect posts (usually 1 liners) will be removed by forum moderators." - ^ see above post ^)

Oh do tell us about your high-brow adult arguments about how the txdata blocksize should start doubling til Bitcoin reaches oblivion. I think people can decide whether I'm being fiercely defensive of my BTC assets and the code protecting them, or, what was it you said? Oh, "low intellect one-liners" appears to be your magic bullet criticism lol. ::)


The "Adult" tactics of the BigBlockers include:

• Constant straw-man derailing of irrefutable points
• Using misleading or bizarre brand names/marketing expressions for technologies that either contradict the evoked psychology ("Classic"), or don't work as advertised ("xthin")
• "Weirdo" character accounts, where the (assumed) personality/beliefs/avatar/sig etc are designed to mock or malign Bitcoin supporters
• Fabricated statistical graphics, designed to suggest the existence of events that have never taken place
• Constant lying and fabrications about Bitcoin supporters to suggest they have conflicts of interest
• Constant lying and fabrications about Bitcoin developers to suggest they have conflicts of interest
• Abusing the forum trust system to malign Bitcoin supporters
• Claiming that the entire blocksize debate was started by the Bitcoin supporters

I could go on. But you're the real grown ups, right? Yeah, the grown-ups that use every nasty little trick in the book to get your own way. Die you fucking scumbags

OP, Mods...

(franky I would be very pleased if you dont respond to the goading above. it belittles you. imo)


v From below v, for posterity,

Totally appropriate response to insidious lying manipulative sociopaths that won't let it go. Again: die you piece of shit

summary of mindsets

blockstream: "we need to get to a capacity that competes against Visa, they do thousands of transactions a second but they settle in days, bitcoin needs to do the same but in 10 minutes"
community: "so you want to invent LN which settles every.. umm...week, month, never? hmmmm"

blockstream: "we need to fix malleability so people can trust zero confirms"
community: "so you invent RBF to make zero confirm untrustable again"

blockstream: "hardforks are bad because everyone has to move over on day 0"
community: "some people already run implementations with higher limits. after all its a 0byte->Xmb rule change, not a exceed 1mb+ at all costs rule. so people can run, test, bugfix the higher limit implementations even now, giving plenty of time. also softforks require pools to upgrade too before it activates. so its literally the same boat.."

blockstream: "we dont want to dilute the node count with bigger blocks"
community: "segwit also increases the data for nodes. infact there is evidence of 2.8mb blocks.. not only that but segwit introduces pruned no witness mode which will definitely dilute the node count"

blockstream: "a hard fork wants to be 8gb blocks next year, run everyone the world will end if that is allowed"
community: "2mb is an acceptable amount of data and it took alot of 2015 for lots of people to drown out the doomsdays to find a number the majority were happy with. and it will grow NATURALLY as technology and ability grows(slowly). there is no end of days meteor incoming in the next year"

blockstream: "anything not blockstream is an altcoin"
community: "anything connecting to the network of the bitcoin genesis block and 7 years of bitcoin data is not an altcoin"

Oh and I forgot the most important tactic: repeating-repeating-repeating ^^^


Every one of those arguments has been refuted, and the Frankys know this, but that doesn't stop them from just regurgitating it as and when they need something to eat.

(Franky and his internal sock-puppets, of course, literally do eat their meals through this behaviour, sometimes he puts in >24 hour shifts when the overtime is available lol)

great post Franky.

lol my comments refuted??

with insults, not technicals.
with whistles in the wind, not facts.
with boring offtopic chest bumping, not relevance.

as for my ability to stay awake. its called stamina.
but as always instead of talking about the topic, you simple waffle on about random things and insult people.

i see you lack stamina because you cannot go a day without getting emotional and having to insult everyone not "team blockstream"

Really, you consider posting obvious facts alongside obvious mistruths to be "technical"?

Do you consider constantly posting "go play with your Monero" to be a good example of your on-topic, technical, varied non-posturing?


Lol, Franky, you're not superhuman, except in the way that you're represented by more than 1 human operator.  The only timezone that doesn't have a Franky working out of it is the mid Pacific circa the International Dateline, lol. Real accounts, owned and controlled by 1 person only, have a big patch where they actually go to sleep whereas your account has barely any variation in the time of day (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=65837;sa=statPanel) at which the various Frankys post from.

What's your excuse, that you live an international jet-set lifestyle touring the world? With your barely existent English, I'm finding that incredibly hard to believe. And apparently you've still got some BTC left after your multiple years on world tour? The quantity of BTC that a below average IQ Brit in a dead-end job amassed in 2013? (and you were probably posting on bitcointalk day and night back when you started, so let's not entertain the idea that you had any capital to invest to begin with, I just haven't got the same amount of time/employees to research your account as much as you research mine ;D)


Your fake character account is dead, Frankys. And if you don't get out of this forum, I and others will continue to dance on it's grave. The Carlton Dance. How are you not embarrassed?

Where nullc conclusively demonstrates that free market incentives will never work for Bitcoin mining:

https://i.imgur.com/0GmWWO5.png

Miners must never be called upon to determine the size of their own blocks. This power shall be centralized into the hands of the Core technicians, thus correcting an extreme mistake and oversight in satoshi's original design.

Extra points for using the emotional buzzword "censoring" to describe rational economic behavior of miners in the operation of their business.

This man has no shame. Or, he really believes what he is typing here... Both are equally terrifying.

lol, oh carlton. go play with your monero

i know i have angered you by highlighting your plans to throw luke Jr to the curb in a couple months in the same style as hearn and gavin. so now everyone knows what dribble to expect from you, its no longer going to be drama. (which has angered you as a known provocateur who wants drama)

and by the way i have looked at your history and 98% is insulting other people.

anyway back to the topic at hand.
lets find out from the other blockstreamers if they will do the same kick to the curb antics of "luke Jrs release will be an altcoin" as another way to keep the blocksize contention alive so that its made as hard as possible to implement across the network

Franky, it doesn't matter how many times you repeat-repeat-repeat this "Lukejr and his altcoin are dancing with wolves" word salad, I and everyone else have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain lol. In detail.

every implimentation that validates bitcoin data and relays bitcoin data... but is not a bitcoin-core release because it includes code for a hard fork, you have deemed an altcoin..

come on, theres a 90page topic made by icebreaker that you love so much. purely trying super hard to shout out that anything with hard fork code is an altcoin.
BU(which funnily last year you actually liked) then XT, then classic.. next is the bitcoinLjr im guessing

but goodluck with your job on the comedy circuit.. i have even used one of my browser tools to remind me of your only "skills"

https://i.imgur.com/dzGtxeB.png

Um, in legible English? I genuinely can't make sense of what you're saying ???

Nice to see that some intelligent folks on reddit are seeing what's really going on
with blockstream. 

Jonald, that's a reddit post from nullc. nullc is gmaxwell. Who did you think it was? (it helps to read things you endorse lol)

It's separation of powers, which is obviously good. These guys are bashing the devs but at least the devs add 1 more separation of power to bitcoin, would they really want to give all power to miners.

Here is the bitcoin powerstructure:

Bitcoin Owners = Ultimate Power, they can vote with their coins, and sell the coins as their veto, therefore the bitcoin price should be a voting indicator

Bitcoin Media = Power to influence owners, and to get ideas across to the people. If they push too much propaganda, their ad revenue will shrink and competitors take over.

Bitcoin Businesses = They hold some significant bitcoins, but they are also running a business therefore they must conform to the will of their customers or risk going out of business

Bitcoin Developers = They are the most experts on bitcoin's technical background. Have big influence on the people and can give technical advices, but they still need to be approved by miners and by the owners.

Bitcoin Miners = They have power to vote on technical changes, but they must conform to the wishes of the bitcoin owners, since they are very dependent on them to sustain big prices, because otherwise they go out of business.

Bitcoin Nodes = They are like the accountants of bitcoin , as they verify the integrity of the blockchain, and maintain the technical stability, they are rarely affected by the other 5, and mostly act as observers on these issues.

There are the 6 powers in bitcoin, and we need all of them. Centralization is not an option.

Not finding fault with that overview. It's a fairly complex social/knowledge based feedback loop, so coming up with a clear description is no mean feat, plaudits.

And this, of course, runs roughshod over the contention that "miners own the network", or that "development team is the new central bank" or any of the other ridiculous over-simplified propaganda spouted by.... I've forgotten which shill said it, probably better that way (and don't get me started mama-jamas... you know you'll get eaten)

Of course, if Bob has 14 million bitcoins, he literally owns bitcoin.

The only threat he has is from the miners who will threaten him to censor his transaction if he tries to sell.

But bob can just hardfork out the miners and influence all exchanges and devs with that amount of money to switch to Bobcoin. And the miners that refuse will be mining an empty coin.

So the real power really lies inside the private keys.

duh...

i was talking about roger ver, erik vorhees etc.

Who are they?


(and lol, no you weren't, there is zero reference to those non-entities in the Alice Gored post, unless you've just let slip that Alice Gored is one of them?)

had to edit it.
after all bitcoin holders choices are not only "do what devs say or sell coins and F*CK off". they can also just keep hoarding.
i find it a shame that many blockstreamers mindset is "if you dont like the new direction fu*k off" because its totally wrong morally, technically logically and practically.

EG if we moved to Sha3.. bitcoin users can just decide not to use those types of keypairs.. and stick with traditional transactions
EG if we moved to LN.. bitcoin users can just decide not to use locked multisigs.. and stick with traditional transactions
EG if we moved to sidechains.. bitcoin users can just decide not to use locked altcoin.. and stick with traditional transactions

The few Core technicians want to be the ultimate regulators who define what blocksize and fees are best for all other Bitcoin users and the network. Im pretty sick of all centralized regulations, it hardly brings anything good and just make the regulators very powerfull to define the fees and how many people can ever use Bitcoin, all by artifically setting blocksize limit parameter.

It reminds me of FED meeting setting interest rates to impact whole US economy. Do people really want few Core technicians defining Bitcoin usage and fees (indirectly trough defining blocksize limit) - I thought Bitcon had to be power resistant, but very small group of people controling Bitcoin and making threats if miners dont follow their vision, they change mining algo so these dictators can retain complete control over Bitcoin. Yes, Bitcoin grew up new elite of dictators from nowhere - they show history repeats and its human nature to abuse power and try to keep the power at all cost. People who dont trust PoW principles should not use Bitcoin - its the miners who secure the network afterall - yet we have to trust few Core technicians instead. Whats the need for Bitcoin then, fiat is already centralized and in control of few people, Bitcoin should be better and one hash equeal one vote is what Bitcoin PoW come with as new fair method to replace centralization and human element.

About the nullc aka gmaxwell, he lost his credibility by constantly spreading FUD about Bitcoin to become centralized and full nodes moving to datacenters if 1 MB base blocksize is ever to be increased - extraordinally claims but no proof. So nullc, come up with science data, because your claims are hilarious and just viewed as political to sceptically thinking person, especially when data based studies showing no such centralization to data centres at all. His taste to regulate fees by keeping artifical limit is well known - in economy it is called central planning if you have no faith in free market and have faith in human regulations instead, lol.

Well said. 

Greg, you are not fooling me.

Even if Peter R is wrong about the fee market (and I'm not saying he is), there's no reason for central planning decades in advance.  I believe your position is based on your own biases and cemented in place by millions of dollars of venture capital.   I appreciate your contributions to Bitcoin, but do not support your current agenda.

I really think that the controversial HF supporters either do not run nodes or are fine with Bitcoin being more centralized. There are already complaints of people who can't catch up on very inexpensive solutions, about reindex and synchronization taking long (even though libsecpk increased the speed drastically). Even if we are talking about a short period of time (let's say 1 year) and 1.75 MB blocks on average, we are talking about more than 90 GBs of space and that is just the start. IIRC there was a presentation (Scaling 2015?) about the possibility of a 'future' where new node users aren't able to catch up to the network with decent hardware(?).

You are stating this out of subjective bias, because you want one thing and they want another one. Ultimately the network decides. If people wanted someone else to decide what is the better approach (yes, a 2 MB block size limit is also "centralized regulation" by your definition) then we you and almost everyone else would be using implementations like Classic.

You mean Peter R Charlatan who came out of nowhere with his "fancy graphics"? ::)

Thought you might have had some ball RealBitcoin and addressed this.
(i suppose you did in many ways by doing 2 posts both in support of Carlton Banks)

Lauda, is this not off topic, ad hom, shitposting or what?
Does Carlton Banks have immunity to following forum rules?

Lol, I cant babysit this thread 24/7, havent even read half of the thread because i see too many trolls here and i dont waste my time with that, if you dont like a post, report it to the mods. Besides this is not a self-moderated threads, so repors should go to mods not me.

I'm legitimately incensed. You're breaking the rules motherfucker: the rules of basic human moral conduct. You can't expect to use lies and deception to manipulate an important human endeavour and not receive vicious push-back. Do you want me step it up a notch with you or something? I've got extra levels of opprobrium, if that's what you want.

And for the love of god: It's not ad hominem when it's true.

OK, reported.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1532295.0

Considering the gravity of your complaints *ahem* rizlarolla, you should contact your local law enforcement. I'm sure they'll take you incredibly seriously when you tell them an 80's sitcom character threatened you with death from natural causes. On the internet. Never mind the threat you represent


And what else could we expect from the sort of person who supports Gavin Andresen; who famously believes that Bitcoin homogeneity/fungibility should be replaced with blacklisting/Ethereum style blockchain rollbacks, because "nasty horrible stealing" lol




If Bitcoin has taught you anything, it should have been that lies, force and threats are not the answer, but when you man-babies can't win it straight, you resort to every immoral trick you can muster, and then some. And you have no shame. You're a waste of carbon and oxygen, how's that for a threat lol

Peter Rizun who presented at the scaling conference and published papers on the fee market.

I will assume you are simply joking and not stooping to the level of Carlton by
accusing those who hold different opinions as scammers.

Peter, Greg, myself, and a few others discussed Peter's paper in the following
thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1274102.0;all

It's a pretty good read. 

You are a scammer. You're deceiving people into accepting a damaging proposal you're promoting. Scamming. That makes you a scammer.

It's a shame when people become so entrenched in their views that anyone else who raises concerns, shares a dissenting view or dares to have a difference of opinion is dismissed as a shill/sockpuppet/scammer/liar/etc.

No independent thought, please, people.  That sort of thing isn't tolerated around here.    ::)

For the time being, I'm happy to wait and see what effect segwit has, but I'm still highly dubious it will deliver anything like the gains its proponents are claiming.  I'm even more wary of RBF and it's clear I'm far from being the only one.  If you're not even prepared to recognise people have concerns that they feel are justified (even if you don't agree) then your sole achievement from this point forward will be to further alienate people and reinforce a toxic atmosphere of distrust on both sides.

This guy must be REALLY fun to talk politics with.  :P

I always enjoy reading your comments, jonald_fyookbool.  Please consider coming over to https://bitco.in/forum/ once and a while!

On the topic of block-size dependent orphaning risk, I remember when I first released my transaction fee market paper (http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf), Maxwell and Co. said that orphaning wasn't a deterrent against larger blocks because miners use Corallo's Relay Network and thus don't suffer block-size-dependent orphaning risk (and then later they said that we can't have bigger blocks because orphaning risk would be too high ... but let's ignore that contradiction for now).

Blockchain.info keeps tabs on orphaned blocks (https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks), and I wrote a script to scrape their site and import that raw data into Mathematica. The data goes back about two years and only appears to be missing a gap from last summer.

If the theory that larger blocks actually are more likely to be orphaned than small blocks is true, then hopefully there would be evidence of this in real orphan data. The figure below shows that indeed this does appear to be the case. Orphaned blocks are consistently larger (on average) than nearby blocks in the main chain.

https://i.imgur.com/rf7lD9D.gif

Indeed, miners incur a real cost by producing extra block space; block space behaves like a normal commodity.

Uh oh Peter, you better watch out man...you're posting "fancy graphics" again.
Wouldn't want anyone to think you're trying to gloss over the issues here. lol.

My understand of the whole conservation between you, me and Gregory is as follows:


1) The natural fee market depends on orphaning risk.  

2) Greg makes the argument that the relay network prevents
bigger blocks from creating more orphaning risk (
presumably because the time intsensive operations are
done pre-emptively)

3) My counter argument is: Why would the miners continue
to use the relay network if it undermines the fee market?

4) I've seen no answer to that question.

The bottom line is that bitcoin runs by distributed consensus.
We all choose to run the code and follow the rules that make
sense.

The idea that some mining group in the future could start undermining
(no pun intended) network security by publishing blocks
with zero to little fees attached is not much different than
the idea that some mining group today could start undermining
network utility by publishing blocks with no transactions.

It's up to the community to only support pools that are acting
in the best interests of Bitcoin.  You can take this idea of
non-rational mining to the extreme and ultimately you end up
with a 51% attack, regardless of whatever fee market you have
or don't have.

no one has said "free" transactions..
the actual debate is that we should not be pushing for excessive fees today when its not even critical for decades.

the fee:reward ratio changes SLOWLY over DECADES. there is no need to controversially keep block sizes down to force fee's up
because the better option for EVERYONE is to have low fee's to keep bitcoin feeling useful. and to slowly increase capacity which would allow more transactions of low fee's which when combined form a bigger pot of funds to help towards the fee:reward ratio change.

this again for emphasis is not a critical thing to force today.

but lets fiip the debate the other way round..
do you want to force keeping the capacity at only 2500-5000 tx a block. meaning for miners to get $10k a block. the fee needs to be $2-$4 per tx

that mindset would make bitcoin worthless for users not only due to not wanting to pay $2+ but also due to capacity limits irritating people who end up waiting hours-days for a confirm.. thus making people not use bitcoin. thus making there be no fee's for the miners to claim. meaning both users and miners disapear. and bitcoin is dead..

miners dont need fees today..
at the moment fee=bonus reward=income.
that will only flip in a couple decades.. no a couple years, so relax..

so as i said the solution is not fee war and capacity crippling.. but instead slow natural growth of capacity with a tx fee remaining low. so that miners dont get paid via $2 for 5000 people but get paid much less per person but with more people

its the same mentality of crowdfunding..
you dont go chasing a couple people for hundreds of dollars.. you ask hundreds of people for a couple dollars

Thats your opinion. I dont see much logic here though, if you mean with fork the same as me, namelly more possible onchain capacity for more possible transactions if miners have enought fee incentive for the increased orphan risk (thanks Peter R for getting hard data to easily viewable form, as usual), I dont see how it can crash the price. Simply saying potentially more people are able to use Bitcoin and full nodes still on home PCs - who would vote against Bitcoin by selling ?

your opinion. and it sounds more like scare mongering rather than researched info..
by the way..
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=2year
this may help..
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2year

orphans go down as blocksize goes up.

this is because miners have money on the line. they are not going to risk it, instead they are going to look for methods to be more efficient and ensure their work gets paid off..(they learned their lesson in july 2015) and became more efficient afterwards

for instance.. lets say the blocklimit was 2mb today.. pools are not going to jump to 2mb tomorrow... just like they didnt jump to 1mb back in 2013 when it was finally possible to go beyond the 500k DB bug of v0.7-v0.8 era and able to then utilise the  1mb maxblocksize buffer
it was slow natural growth at a pace they deemed safe. at a pace they deemed efficient

I have been reading this many times and I just cant absorb it all. But whatever happens to mining or the difficulty or the blocksize the miners will continue to mine to earn some more. Its also the same to us bitcoin users even if bitcoins price will fall or rise we cannot but just use bitcoin to earn more cash. In the end its a matter of earning some cash for daily use and purchasing things.

Actually there is no correlation, so i deleted that post.

We either need more data, but i doubt that we have time for that. Also if we increase it to 2mb, and then a lot of ophans will appear, it's not like we can decrease it back to 1 mb.

SO that will be a 1 way deal, therefore if a hardfork were to happen, it should be better tested out and simulated before implemented, because we cant roll back if something bad happens.

FTFY


So, the banking shills you represent started flooding the Bitcoin network with low fee transactions simply to push full nodes off the network, and you really expect anyone to believe that the whole charade won't begin all over again if your 2MB2MB2MB wish came true?

You people are slowly beginning to create your own internal bitcointalk echo chamber, you can barely attract anyone to your irrelevant debates anywhere on the internet let alone on this forum. It's going to be nothing but talk (oh, and yours and Peter's pretty pictures, of course), and , as usual, no action.

Do something relevant. With anyone or to anything. I predict you will all fail for, how many times have you failed so far, Frankys? It's easier to count the successes: 0

"alot" is an exaggeration. but as the increase happens slowly and naturally. pools will learn new and better ways to check their work to reduce their risk.
pools wont jump from 1mb straight to 2b of data overnight..

the blocklimit is a BUFFER.. just like the 1mb was a BUFFER when pools were making only 500k in 2013.. slowly rising ,, again SLOWLY rising til this year
so pools from day one of getting the 95%-100% consensus activation would slowly increase to 1.01mb of dta with the 2mb BUFFER enforced


infact many people already have implementations with the 2mb BUFFER right now. yep, live.. yep receiving and relaying blockchain data of bitcoin, not some altcoin.




as to carlton and his blockstream devotion(a corporation funded using bank money) is the "group" that has the echo chamber of circle jerking to the already converted corporate lovers
ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.0)

the real funny thing is blockstreamers cannot pretend they want decentralized independence if they call shill to who is not TEAM blockstream.. which brings me to an earlier point

as for what i have done for the community lol.. well carlton didnt answer my question about if you would do a "REKT" campaign on luke JR when he releases his "independent code" that is not blockstream/core accepted.. so you can just presume what you like about my potential answer too.

the answer is 2 possibilities
1. indeed Luke Jr would receive the noble REKT campaign because it defies blockstream investors contract, and breaches one of the conditions that would release one of the financial tranches.. so ofcourse there has to be a big push to destroy its chances of success
2. carlton will have to backtrack every statement he made and accept luke Jr's code is good and works.

EG its a "marmite" decision. you either love it or hate it..

What if the blocksize limit were chosen by each node individually?

Everyone would set the minimum = send and the maximum =receive.

So for example I would send minimum 2 mb blocks (if full), but accept maximum 6 mb blocks.

Would it work? That would make it optional for those with shitty internet to put a cap, but those that have good internet would have bigger cap (but not infinite to defend against DDOS)

changing the block limit individually, to reject blocks.. is a stupid thing to do purely for slow connections.. it basically renders the node no longer part of the network
but here is some advice.

limit the number of node CONNECTIONS and you get the desire you want.

EG someone with fast internet can have 50-100 nodes connected. (it used to be termed supernode)
EG someone with slow internet can have 1-6 nodes connected.

the point of the blocksize consensus is that everyone agrees to a certain level.. you may be asking why..
to ensure everyone accepts the same block data. and thus no rejects/orphans due to relays. (there are other ways to orphan but pools can mitigate those other risks as explained before)

so getting to your previous point. if everyone was at 2mb.. they can ALL accept any blocks of 200byte-2000000byte with no issue. meaning a 0.5mb block is accepted, a 1.001mb block is accepted a 1.9mb block is accepted

so by having "block consensus". people only then need to mess around with how many nodes they relay to and from. which can be independent. and a post on another page of this topic pointed out the 37mb/10 minute upload ability of a 0.5mbit internet connection (baseline) shows that even slow internet connections can relay to a few nodes..

by the way its worth pointing this out because even segwit goes upto 4mb(buffer) of REALDATA*.. and if you are thinking of running pruned/no-witness mode, you are no longer a full node so might aswell just run multibit or electrum or other lite clients

now preparing for your rebuttal that not everyone would accept 2mb..
this whole year has been about the 2mb buffer wont be ACTIVATED until consensus is reached. and so it wont make a difference before consensus because noone will make blocks over 1mb before consensus.. and obviously consensus is reached if it got activated which means everyone would be accepting the new buffer

*segwit keeps "base size at 1000000 meaning traditional transactions are at the same 1mb limit.. the extra 3mb is only for segwit witnesses(signatures)
which with a 1in-2out standard tx segwit doesnt offer much more capacity allowance at all, but does allow the capacity trick to be noticeable more if everyone was using multisigs or multiple inputs.. dont confuse segwits 4mb buffer as a "blocklimit" buffer of 4mb for traditional transactions.

simple

Far too large a contingent would never accept Andresen, Garzik, and the rest of those cronies as the developers. Because it means 2MB + shill dev team. Not just 2MB on it's own. Fail, Franky.

No that would not work at all. We'd have nodes that have differentiating chain heights which would most likely cause a lot more problems. You can already limit the amount of bandwitdh that you want to spend though (e.g. 'blocksonly' mode).

Additionally, after some time most blocks will be above the threshold that you set so it becomes ineffective. It just delays the inevitable.

They used to be good, but now we see them 'contribute' rarely or wrongly (e.g. 'header first mining').

luke Jr's independent code next month.. REKT campaign being prepared by you guys yet??

I still don't understand what you're talking about Franky

I see, the pesky block format is the issue in my opinion. Because it's standardized.

If the transactions were each put arbitrarly in blocks, it would be enough to just verify their hashes to see that they are original,and then there would be no need for the block format.

It would be a very big deviation from the protocol , but it would be interesting to see an altcoin try this.

So then the block sizes would vary, and each node would verify the transaction counts in them, and pass them along eachother.

Why only once and a while? I have no objection with Jonald spending all of his time within the bigblock-altcoin development community.

Bitcoin Core developers made Hearn, Andresen, and Peter R. look like schoolboys by designing and implementing a truly innovative, secure, and decentralization preserving way to scale Bitcoin. The FUD-campaign led by XT/ClassicCoin shills has totally failed - it was proven wrong by reality. The fancy extrapolation graphics circulated as propaganda for the simpleminded were not effective in pressuring Bitcoin Core developers to implement a fast route to government control of transactions.

None of the guys involved in the XT/ClassicCoin schemes are being taken serious anymore, with Gavin Andresen giving a prime example of his outright dangerous incompetence by lending credibility to alleged serial scammer Craig Wright.

ya.ya.yo!

I believe that is what bitcoin unlimited attempts to do.  

I don't know the particulars but generally I like the idea
that the blocksize be decided dynamically by consensus not
by protocol rules.

AFAIK the only thing implemented so far is segwit... which only (temporarily) avoids a hardfork, and still increases bandwidth, which is the supposed boogieman of "government control".

bitcoin unlimited does. but the guy "RealBitcoin" is suggesting people LOWER their own block limit below any community accepted consensus purely to alleviate that individuals personal internet speed issues. which would ofcourse render that individual not part of the network(amungst other issues).

however the internet speed issue can be resolved by not being stupid and setting your node to connect to 100 other nodes. but instead 1-6 nodes for instance, which even on a slow connection is adequate.

Yes
Should be repeated every day now!

Well, we can't really state that Bitcoin is very well designed. I'm certain that the developers who are working on it currently, would do a lot of things differently if they could. The only 'good' thing about altcoins is that they can be used to test out some 'difficult' ideas. I don't think that we are going to see such radical re-design (what are the limitations of a HF?), so there's not much 'point' in discussing it in, at least not in this thread. I do wonder if they can get RC1 released before the halving (even though Segwit still has no activation parameters). However, rushing is usually not the right thing to do.

Compact blocks aim to improve bandwidth requirements, i.e. lower them. Additionally, have we already forgotten all the excellent upgrades that they've delivered (e.g. libsecp256k1)?

Created sick, and commanded to be sound.


Segwit on Litecoin first: 2016!


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


Agreed


No, and yes, that is the storyline. The simple solution sits in the wheelhouse (or was it bikeshed?). While the complex one, is rushed along. 

It's both interesting and sad how nobody ('forkers') mentioned this before Segwit was actually delivered. You're the ones that want to postpone it now and are going to blame Core later for "delaying" a capacity increase. I'm sure of it.

While the change in the block size limit might seem simple, a hard fork is definitely anything but simple. Additionally, you can see that 2 MB is unsafe without those additional (new) artificial limits added by Gavin. I also don't feel like Segwit is being rushed at all. It's been worked on since 2015 and tested for several months.

To tell you the truth i dont really like the Segwit and the "hacks" that bitcoin BIPS represent.

However I also dont want to turn bitcoin into a political scene, where you have each group representing their own interests and trying to impose their own hardforks on everyone else.

It is clear that bitcoin needs a separation of powers, and that is why the hardforks should be an unthinkable option. There mere fact that people just mention it, proves that humans have learned nothing from the politics of the past 5000 years.


You will have:

SocialistBTC
LiberalBTC
ConservativeBTC
MarxBTC

Folks do we really need that shit?

the question is not about 2 directions constantly running.. its about taking a certain route and everyone following.
because consensus is about making a choice and going for that single route
we wont have a point where there are 2,3,4 different chains all with the 7 year of bitcoin data and satoshis genesis block all working at the same time forever

again, if you think that 2 forks will survive then you have been fed too much of the blockstream rhetoric

the miners and merchants and users would eventually choose one. and the other would just disappear into orphans and eventually no one would build on that chain..

put it this way. if 95% of mining pools upgraded to segwit tomorrow. then within 2 weeks EVERYONE would/SHOULD upgrade too otherwise they are no longer full nodes..(yes users not upgrading is diluting the node count of FULL VALIDATING NODES which has its own risks)

so knowing everyone could/should upgrade to remain full validation nodes. it might aswell include the extra buffer in that same update too
and then at a later date miners can decide when its safe for them to include data above the old limit.

emphasis: releasing the code does not cause a fork. only miners making bigger blocks when the community are not ready is the risk of a fork..which wont happen due to orphans costing the miners money.
so the simple solution is release the code and there wont be a risk

again simply preventing the code even being publicly available to core fanboys is the cause of controversy. not miners, not merchants.. not users.. just devs causing controversy by limiting choice.
if the code was available. people could move across.. then there wont be any orphans or issues because miners would only push passed the old limits when they dont see it as a orphan risk. and that would only happen if the devs got their heads out of the sand

oh lauda.. your switching..
one day segwit is the ultimate and only capacity solution
next day segwit is not the capacity solution its designed to solve other features that are made pointless to solve (malleability vs RBF)
next day it has capacity increases as a side effect
next day segwit is not intended to be a capacity increase solution.

seriously.. stop overselling segwit to fit one rhetoric and then underselling it to pretend you have not dedicated your last 6 months of life to pushing for segwit as a ultimate capacity solution.

I am not really familiar with your post and the topics but there is one thing that I have alittle knowledge and I want to share it, its about quantum computers. Quantum computers are to build by NSA, this type of computers can crack into most types of encryption. A quantum computer could (in theory) perform millions of calculations all at once. If tis being used for the benefit of bitcoins then it will give blockchain more power for faster transfer and transactions. Hope it has positive impact on bitcoins since we do not know what is the reason behind why NSA are trying to build such computer.

Look at this. i d support that one

https://medium.com/@solex1/time-for-bitcoin-1-x-17b54eed2c4a#.q7x1x44r0

Yep, this argument has been frequently put forward before, but it never seems to sink in.  I can't seem to quote two of them normally as the thread is now locked, but:




We can't put all our eggs in the off-chain basket.  There will be consequences if miners don't see sufficient ROI.

In a really open system, where there is no limits - except the 21Mio - it would be all up to the game theory and on + off chain scaling projects and groups would deliver a very nice solution in a fair competition.
What we now have is still BSLaudations....
Once the Chinese will understand this soon, they could / should open up the system by own codings.

The quotes you used are correct, any fees taken away from miners going to have consequence in reduced Bitcoin security especially in future when fees become much more important and going to represent higher % of miners income than today.

Any fees paid in offline solutions are fees which miners wont get anymore. Thats why its very dangerous precedent to try limit the blocksize so no more fee paying transactions can be included even though current technology easily support slightly bigger blocks for more transaction fees to collect, and miners understand this.