We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.
This is my issue as well. If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node.. IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives... No. No. And just no, stop saying this if you don't want to be seen as a intentionally misinforming. The size of the blocks is, and has always been, bandwidth limited. One bitcoin buys about 6 TB of hard drive. I'm not sure if you are kidding, being disingenuous or just a simple smart-ass trolling. Buying a hard-drive doesn't get you more bandwidth (did I really just need to say that??) .... now would you like to quantify 'about' how much bandwidth 1 bitcoin buys you? My reply was actually directed at spazzdla but I quoted your post too since I couldn't tell if you were serious or sarcastic. |
|
|
|
We obviously need a bigger block size if we want to challenge the big payment electronic systems. My main concern is that the people running nodes could be severely decreased due the blockchain being bigger than ever.
This is my issue as well. If the blockchain.. when the block chain reaches 1 TB.. there will be issues with everyone running a node.. IT would appear the size of the blockchain is out pacing the upgrade in harddrives... No. No. And just no, stop saying this if you don't want to be seen as a intentionally misinforming. The size of the blocks is, and has always been, bandwidth limited. One bitcoin buys about 6 TB of hard drive. |
|
|
|
I would not and did not offer that advice to supporters of Core. I instead advised they try to use their remaining clout to get consensus around an increase where they still have commit access. Core supporters should immediately release a fork with 8Mb blocks or some automated schedule of block size increases. This is the only way they can diffuse the power grab which they are most likely going to lose otherwise (MPEX's Gavinshort as one potential wildcard). But they painted themselves into a corner by saying that no changes should come without entire consensus before hand. They really lost the chess match. I could see precisely what Hearn et al was baiting Adam to write. And damn if he fell right into the trap. I am sending a link of this post to both Adam and Greg. Then I won't bother them again. Your advice is teaching them how to lose. Clever. But I am calling you out. Hopefully at least some of them won't be so unable or unwilling to understand this isn't a either-or situation. The relevant question is: who is going to produce the software which the Bitcoin economic majority will choose to use? The answer could be the existing Bitcoin Core developers. The answer could be Mike and Gavin. The answer could just as easily be none of the above. Anybody involved who does not act with that understanding in mind is very likely to lose any ability they would otherwise have to do good things for Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
CBs have gotten away with their abuses simply because they outlawed real money alternatives to fiat for long enough that the public lost memory of the very existence of alternatives to CB money. Everyone sees the dollar/euro/pound/yen as money because they use them every day, so no one runs away from these mechanisms no matter how they are abused. What would they run to? As long as central banks have existed their activities have been subsidized via (government-provided) monolopy and via taxation. Almost from the moment people stopped using gold coins and switched to gold IOUs for their daily transactions, gold has been a government welfare program. There's no such thing as a free market reserve currency. To obtain what the crypto goldbugs want they'll need national governments to take control of most of the Bitcoins in circulation and use their taxing capabilities to support the price. |
|
|
|
In general, we should not be afraid of cartels That's only true in the sense that cartels are naturally unstable unless and until they get support from governments in the form of externalizing the cost of enforcement. |
|
|
|
Now it does for me as well. I think the auto moderator may have grabbed it for a few minutes, which makes me wonder exactly what kind of setting theymos is using for it. |
|
|
|
|
Voting schemes are not the simplist thing that could work.
|
|
|
|
i smell DOOM for Blockstream, gmax, and Adam:
“We have really good communication with Gavin Andresen on this issue."
Doom is not the ideal outcome. It would likely mean any positive contributions they could make would be squandered. |
|
|
|
But why are you focused on circumstantial innuendo and not on the hard physical science of it?
I couldn't move on with my life until I had researched the hard science of it. I just had to know. I don't understand why others would be so apathetic?
Because ultimately I will never have access to the evidence or the expertise to evaluate it, and most importantly: I don't care if it was Saudi terrorists or American terrorists who planned the attacks. Even if the US government is 100% responsible for 9/11, it has done far worse than kill those 3000 people, both before and after the event. So focusing on whether or not they are responsible is a bit like obsessing over whether or not a serial killer also deserves a parking ticket. |
|
|
|
Why do you belabor this point instead of focusing on your errors about 9/11? You're right, I just checked and I misremembered something. There wasn't a second bombing attempt in 1998 - that was actually a robbery. So even though the buildings had been in the news twice in the decade prior to 9/11 there had been only one prior attempt by terrorists to destroy the towers. |
|
|
|
well then, do as you promised and go away. How do you know if somebody will never, ever leave a thread? If they write a post promising/threatening that they will. |
|
|
|
And FYI the idea literally was written into a Tom Clancy novel years before (although IIRC it was Japan that attacked) so the terrorists did not even need to be creative I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that. I remember as soon as I heard the news about planes crashing into the World Trade Center and Pentagon my first thought was, "wow, it's just like in Debt of Honor". Even back then I thought the media narrative was hysterical and insane. As you said, the idea of using planes to attack buildings wasn't exactly obscure - Tom Clancy was among the most popular authors of the 90s, and the world trade center been a target of terrorists attacks already. People were acting like their entire world view had been shattered by the fact that terrorists finally succeded in destroying the building they'd been trying to destroy for a decade. Were they just not paying attention to the first two attempts? |
|
|
|
fortunately TPTB are not 1 person, they are a decentralized group of infallible humans incapable of loving each other with eternal affection and equal intensity they may not even know they are TPTB, and then there is the second tears in the hierarchy. If Bitcoin is a tool for TPTB, the worst case is some of us are implicitly involved and indirectly subverting power from within the existing PTB hierarchy or from a tear above, it is most likely we aren't agents but lucky individuals who have front row seats to battle between the extremely powerful and the very powerful.
Occam's razor, suggests that's probably not the case.
Reminds me of another conversation: Remember that "government" is just a word - there is no monolithic entity with that name. Instead, there are a large number of individuals who all have their own individual goals and motivations. The extent to which they cooperate to enforce certain policies on the rest of the population is a function of how well their individual goals and motivations align with the goals of the organization itself.
Regulators can't stop Bitcoin any more than the RIAA could stop P2P file sharing, so there's no need for Bitcoin users to self-censor out of a misplaced hope that doing so will protect them.
Every time regulators attempt to stifle Bitcoin and are unsuccessful, Bitcoin will gain more credibility and more users - and very importantly many of those users will be "defectors" from the government side. As governments are finding themselves unable to stop Bitcoin, their organizations will slowly start to fill up with Bitcoin users. Identifying the positive feedback loop in this scenario is left as an exercise for the reader. |
|
|
|
I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.
I don't have an (maybe I should say: a valid) opinion on the block size debate. I would prefer to err on the side of decentralization, but at this point I'm not even sure what that is. I think magic numbers are a poor solution (but I'm sure they are sometimes necessary). I'm not afraid of forks, like most people seem to be. I think that everyone should be prepared for how they will deal with possible forks in the future. What I do know is that after spending a lot of time reading about Bitcoin for the past several years, and getting a feel for some of the people involved, I would prefer to stay far, far away from anything that is related to Mike Hearn. For the life of me, I can't even understand why someone like him is interested in Bitcoin (unless it's to change it into something else entirely). I'm thankful that he has barely touched Bitcoin Core. So I oppose BitcoinXT, but not necessarily a block size increase. Disclaimer: I use Mycelium for convenience from time to time and do not know whether or not that is based on any of Hearn's BitcoinJ. thanks Holiday, I find myself thinking similar things, ultimately I'm for decentralization, and while I've been horrified by some of Mikes off the cuff ideas in the past, I am largely inspired by the ideas he has pushed through to fruition. to me decentralization = more distributed, and having centralized control by a group of people no matter their track record is still centralization, Mike is not my first choice for a dictator, but I respect that he doesn't care to do what other people think he should do, but is going to do what he thinks is best that makes it easy to follow him, so long as we are going to the same place it is easy to part ways when he decides to go somewhere strange. I may not agree with him on many issues despite that, decentralization of control is the future for Bitcoin. I'm happy with the understanding that running an XT node is not giving him the keys to Bitcoin but doing just the posit, distributing the control system. The way to support development decentralization is to run nodes that are not Bitcoin Core or its derivatives (including XT) Once Gavin (or someone) produces a firm proposal, then run libbitcoin or btcd nodes that have been patched to support it. |
|
|
|
The other thing I don't understand is why people focus on the network overhead rather than the overhead to run a single node. As far as I can see, this should always be roughly O(n).
Its hard to scare people when you talk about O(n) costs per node. |
|
|
|
theymos was one of the very few who saw what a train-wreck TBF was likely to be when Gavin floated the idea and spoke up about it. I'll let you guess who another one of these lonely voices might have been. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1227012#msg1227012That post also serves as proof that I wasn't singling out Blockstream when I asked them the same question about potential conflicts of interest. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
