...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...
It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market. Is this an accurate assessment? Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)? None. Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing. You do not, and in any way, represent "the market". Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims. Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from. He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't. Big market (makers?!) here..   Big market makers are here. http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/ You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet? "Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ? |
|
|
|
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...
It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market. Is this an accurate assessment? Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)? None. Thank you for the honest answer. I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty: You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage. Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust. Get used to that now. Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively. But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off. Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant. Whilst most people still use debit cards, poor people sheeps dreaming of everlasting free-spamming-on-chain transactions are, yet again, irrelevant. Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that. I'm not forcing you nor anyone else to use Bitcoin. As per your understanding level illustrates, I however would highly recommend you to use ripple.  Good so you agree that if more people want to be on chain while bitcoin can't give enough room to accommodate participants, most people will simply migrate to other more relevant blockchains. I highly doubts Ripple will get anywhere though. A more probably scenario is either an altcoin will take the largest market share that bitcoin can't serve or either a split fork of the bitcoin blockchain (most probable scenario IMO). Yes I do think a Bitcoin-fork-thepoor may happen. |
|
|
|
Forcing the market on your path won't work. I hope you know that.
What you refer to as the market is a bunch of confused noobs. As bambou just expressed: they're irrelevant. |
|
|
|
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...
It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market. Is this an accurate assessment? Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)? None. Thank you for the honest answer. I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty: You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage. Don't worry, it's going to happen sooner or latter as Core doesn't scales and blocks are being filled out. Either the pressure will just keep going up for larger blocks or the market will move to something else that scales better leaving Core in the dust. Get used to that now. Blocksize is irrelevant to scaling effectively. But yes, can't wait for you people sheeps to fork off. Unfortunately for you, most people want to stay on chain so yes the block size is very relevant. You really need to ramp up your arguments, maybe ask Peter for some pointers. You sound like the retarded one from the bunch |
|
|
|
You don't say anything new; in fact, you're reiterating your claims as if I never challenged them.
I'll try again, the last time: there are network topology issues which result in an uneven block propagation. Uneven propagation alters the orphan race outcomes for different players (mostly pools), making some of them more profitable. The larger blocks get, the larger is the financial difference. This is what alters the incentive structure. This is exactly my point, it effects the pools not the miners. This is a very important distinction, since if miners are not effected it does not increase mining centralization, it could effect pool centralization if increased to much however for pools it is trivial to setup a full node inside of a data center, which is why pools can support much larger blocks without increasing centralization. It is important to point out the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization, what you are discussing effects pool centralization, therefore increasing the blocksize does not increase mining centralization. I can't see how this distinction is of much value, as in the end most miners will have to mine at pools, which are being centralized. Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners. Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization. This distinction is critical in understanding the issues of mining and pool centralization. The point is miners will not allow one pool to grow to large, since this would undermine the basic value proposition of Bitcoin. It is also actually the other way around, the pools serve the miners. Since it is the miners that control the hashing power. I am not advocating eight gigabyte blocks today that would be ridiculous. In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever. If you really think that miners will conspire or will be forced to fundamentally undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin itself then you do not understand the fundamental incentive mechanisms and game theory inherent in its design. Bitcoin is sustained and maintained by the miners who are incentivized not to undermine the value of Bitcoin, this is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more and they never will as long as the hashing power remains sufficiently distributed which is not effected by increasing the blocksize. I specifically chose an extreme scenario to demonstrate you that mining centralization pressures exist (my original claim), no matter miners' readiness to switch pools. If there are only two pools located in the same data-center, what can you do as an individual miner? What you are confusing here is this: " In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would not cause any mining centralization whatsoever" should at best be worded like that: " In the examples that I have given eight megabyte is what I am using, which would be unlikely to cause any mining centralization, because centralization pressures would be negligible". Even in this form it could be debated whether these pressures would be insignificant. You are. I'd propose you give up now. Others have tried but this dude is just too dense for his own good. |
|
|
|
|
Don't like it? Don't use it
|
|
|
|
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...
It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market. Is this an accurate assessment? Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)? None. Thank you for the honest answer. I'll push it just a bit more for you, since you like honesty: You abide or gtforko to any altcoin that suits your corporatist mirage.  |
|
|
|
The reason the market consensus tolerates a limit to the left of Q*...
You have your hypothesis and I have mine. We will only be able to determine which is correct with the benefit of hindsight. Like I said upthread, the nice thing is that these hypotheses are at least partly testable. If your theory is correct (that the market will tolerate a limit to the left of Q*) then that would have the affect of pushing aggregate fees above the aggregate cost of production for block space. If the total miner fees collected over a six month period in the future were, for example, twice the total block rewards lost due to orphaning, then I think I would agree that your theory is correct. Time will tell. My hypothesis is supported by current observations of the network dynamics. Yours is based on faulty assumptions derived from your "paper" that pretend "cost of production" (which I presume is another name for orphan costs) are non-negligible on the long-term and that it is not trivial for miners to overcome them by cooperating/centralizing. By all account you are wrong as miners have already shown a tendency to optimize for profit. An unbounded block size will only grow this incentive. Miners will mine the coin with the most value. Anyway, how about you both get lost with your "hypothesis"? Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it... In Vires Numeris.I'm on your side, just playing along with Peter for entertainment  |
|
|
|
If/when Bitcoin is big enough then cashing out would be silly.
Church |
|
|
|
The reason the market consensus tolerates a limit to the left of Q*...
You have your hypothesis and I have mine. We will only be able to determine which is correct with the benefit of hindsight. Like I said upthread, the nice thing is that these hypotheses are at least partly testable. If your theory is correct (that the market will tolerate a limit to the left of Q*) then that would have the affect of pushing aggregate fees above the aggregate cost of production for block space. If the total miner fees collected over a six month period in the future were, for example, twice the total block rewards lost due to orphaning, then I think I would agree that your theory is correct. Time will tell. My hypothesis is supported by current observations of the network dynamics. Yours is based on faulty assumptions derived from your "paper" that pretend "cost of production" (which I presume is another name for orphan costs) are non-negligible on the long-term and that it is not trivial for miners to overcome them by cooperating/centralizing. By all account you are wrong as miners have already shown a tendency to optimize for profit. An unbounded block size will only grow this incentive. |
|
|
|
In the Bitcoin economy the market = consensus
Until consensus approves a block size increase then you might as well say that the market does not agree to one either.
I agree. You are yet again guilty of the very sophism Carlton Banks pointed out. The reason the market consensus tolerates a limit to the left of Q* is because of the OBVIOUS & CONSIDERABLE negative externalities brought about by an unbounded block size. On the other hand, what consensus does not tolerate is your pathetic repeated attempts to hand wave away this issue as trivial and non-important when it is fundamental to the incentives of Bitcoin |
|
|
|
I think some of the "heat" regarding the block size limit and multiple-implementations comes down to the existence of two opposing visions of what Bitcoin is. Some think Bitcoin is ultimately governed by mathematics, others think it's the market. My opinion is that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the market; only over the short term is it governed by mathematics (the source code). Because this is my view point, multiple implementations are a good thing to me because they remove friction and allow the market to more easily meet its demands (e.g., a larger block size limit). If someone has the opposing view, then I could understand why they might view multiple implementations as a danger (e.g., the rules could be changed by the market). What's interesting is that the answer to who's vision is correct is, at least partly, testable. If the market-governance theory is correct, then it should not be possible to drive a fee market significantly above the free-market equilibrium. The market will tolerate a block size limit to the right of Q* (i.e., a limit serving as an anti-spam measure but not affecting the free market dynamics).  However, the market will not tolerate a limit to the left of Q* (a limit that results in a deadweight loss of economic activity).  If the market wants to be at Q*, how can that same market force it to be at Qmax instead? If the market theory is correct, then the total miner fees should never significantly exceed the total coins lost to orphaning over a sustained period of time. This would be one way to refute the market-governance hypothesis. Since Q* is now very close to bumping into Qmax, perhaps we'll have our answer within a year or so. Cross posted: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/block-space-as-a-commodity-a-transaction-fee-market-exists-without-a-block-size-limit.58/page-6#post-1944In the Bitcoin economy the market = consensus Until consensus approves a block size increase then you might as well say that the market does not agree to one either. |
|
|
|
You're just another Gerald Davis.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around why you appear to be acting hostile towards me. Because you are a disingenuous and very dangerous person  There is no centralization of Bitcoin development. Like every other open-source project it has a source code repository that everyone is free to submit pull requests to. Each user is also free to fork the source code into their own version. Several groups have done so already. Multiple different implementations are already out in the wild. What are you doing to support them? |
|
|
|
Professor Rizun...
For the record, I'm not a professor; I work in the private sector. I co-own a small, humble high-tech company that develops intellectual property for different types of sensors. Most of my non-bitcoin work is what you would call "spherical-cow math" to try to understand physical phenomenon in order to make better devices. Some examples include optimally fusing the signal of a gyroscope with an accelerometer to measure human motion, understanding the propagation of vibrations through metal drill string for an acoustic telemetry for oil drilling, to inferring the temperature of the process chamber at an Intel semicon fab by measuring the fluorescence of a special crystal. So I suggest that a better attack would be "he's not even a professor." You should keep the "backwater sub-arctic middle of nowhere bit," however. It does get cold up here in my igloo. Anyways, enough about me. Let's focus on making Bitcoin succeed. That begins by focusing on your apparently accomplished career and leave Bitcoin alone. Your antics are sucking the attention of productive people whose profession and expertise consists of growing Bitcoin. Despite the picture you attempt to paint every respectable individual in this ecosystem recognize the job they have accomplished and only loud nobodies such as yourself are doubting them going forward.  I can't fucking wait to dance on you XT retards' grave. You're just another Gerald Davis. |
|
|
|
Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.
Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective. We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By. Thanks just got into the debate and wanted to see if I fully understood what the problem was about... so why can Gaven not see this? I mean it took me like an hour to get the facts down and realize its a bad idea right now? whats his view? You can't possibly have missed all this lulz ? Gavin has been compromised by Mike Hearn and his merry band of socialist shills who are attempting to press urgency under the pretense that the cap is stalling Bitcoin MAINSTREAM adoption. I know that part its obvious... so what are their arguments for? Bitcoin XT An immediate switch to 8 MB and doubling every two year until 32GB blocks. |
|
|
|
By the time that happens, there will be no single miner able to mine the block alone and collect the 50 BTC fee reward.
Your logic doesn't take the increase in adoption into account.
 Explain. Imagine that in future, the transaction fee income for each block raised to 50 bitcoins, while the block reward almost decreased to zero, then every miner would become the early adopter: They can mine bitcoin exactly like early CPU miners at 50 coins per block
Even when fee reward is 50 BTC, there no single miner who can earn it. In the early days, you could mine blocks yourself, but with 50BTC fee reward in the year 2140 it will all be done by pools. Large industrial miners are solving blocks alone everyday. What is this sorcery you speak of? There is a difference in CPU miner run by one person and a mining farm ran by a company or pool of individuals. You cannot say mining will be as easy for one person as it was 6 years ago. There is no difference. It is effectively 1 mining entity. Anyway this is beside the point which really was that subsidy would return to 50 BTC. |
|
|
|
By the time that happens, there will be no single miner able to mine the block alone and collect the 50 BTC fee reward.
Your logic doesn't take the increase in adoption into account.
Explain. Imagine that in future, the transaction fee income for each block raised to 50 bitcoins, while the block reward almost decreased to zero, then every miner would become the early adopter: They can mine bitcoin exactly like early CPU miners at 50 coins per block
Even when fee reward is 50 BTC, there no single miner who can earn it. In the early days, you could mine blocks yourself, but with 50BTC fee reward in the year 2140 it will all be done by pools. Large industrial miners are solving blocks alone everyday. What is this sorcery you speak of? |
|
|
|
increasing the blocksize does not change this dynamic whatsoever one way or the other. You did not prove that, and I explained why it does. Hint: cenralization pressures change this dynamic. We depend on miners to do what is best for Bitcoin, this works because they are incentivized to do good. This is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more. Don't be so naive. You don't know if they are doing good, in fact, most Chinese large farms connected to AntPool, F2Pool and others might be controlled by a single company. What you see is a nice graph on bc.i, nothing more. In the same sense we will rely on the miners when censorship happens on the pool level, to move their mining power over to a pool that does not censor transactions, I think miners will do so because Bitcoin derives some of its value from its permissionless nature. No amount of miners' faith can circumvent government regulation. That's a fundamental problem to Bitcoin that bothers me most. It is good to keep in mind that it only takes one small pool to include the censored transactions to thwart the efforts of the tyrants. Circumvented easily -- just orphan all non-abiding blocks. I also do not think that every jurisdiction in the world would fall under this type of censorship and oppression as well, which is what would be required for such censorship to be successful. There are countries that love to project their power onto others around the world (FATCA and so on), and countries that might be willing to do the same (China, ..). What happens you can't predict, but I cant discount any possibility. Also smaller pools are not less profitable they just have more variance, obviously however you would not want to be in a pool that has under 5 percent of the hashpower depending on the timescale of your mining operation of course. That's the whole point of the debate. The uneven propagation is influencing orphan races outcomes. While this can be at least partially mitigated by relay networks, the worst-case scenarios is still the same. If we cannot trust that the majority of the mining power will do what is best for Bitcoin then Bitcoin has already fundamentally failed which I do not think is presently the case. In order to orphan all non-abiding blocks a single entity would need to be able exert control over more then fifty one percent of the mining power, if this happens Bitcoin has already been undermined anyway. You don't understand Bitcoin. It is not about trusting miners but aligning their incentives properly, which you suggest to change. The onus of proof is on you to support your position with factual demonstration that the balance of power is not at risk. You have so far tragically failed at doing so. |
|
|
|
By the time that happens, there will be no single miner able to mine the block alone and collect the 50 BTC fee reward.
Your logic doesn't take the increase in adoption into account.
Explain. |
|
|
|
Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.
Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective. We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By. Thanks just got into the debate and wanted to see if I fully understood what the problem was about... so why can Gaven not see this? I mean it took me like an hour to get the facts down and realize its a bad idea right now? whats his view? You can't possibly have missed all this lulz ? Gavin has been compromised by Mike Hearn and his merry band of socialist shills who are attempting to press urgency under the pretense that the cap is stalling Bitcoin MAINSTREAM adoption. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
