It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.
The protocol ossifying is a good thing. You don't see people trying to add features to tcp/ip every day do you? |
|
|
|
[00:08] <petertodd> bramc: but today we have a blocksize limit low enough that everyone has access to reasonably low orphan rates [00:08] <petertodd> bramc: (remember that the networking code we have right now on the p2p network is *really* inefficient) [00:09] <bramc> petertodd, And the blocksize limit is staying down there, by design[00:09] <petertodd> bramc: what do you mean? [00:10] <bramc> petertodd, The current 'plan of record' is for the block size to de facto go up by less than 2x with segwit and otherwise stay put, at least for now [00:10] <bramc> For exactly that reason [00:10] <petertodd> bramc: sure |
|
|
|
Why are you still entertaining the notion that a network wide hardfork can be deployed faster than SW can?
Because it's one line of code vs well... an untested and fairly complex reorg of the protocol. See what you did here? No matter how complex SW can still be deployed and made effective faster than a hard fork which will take at least a full year to deploy and activate. Well, I apologize for concern trolling while a single company molds a decentralized protocol, of which I'm a long time participant, to its self interested will.
Your concerns would be appreciated if they were based on facts and legitimate understanding of the dynamics involved. Clearly these are not things you can bring to the table. |
|
|
|
This assumes miners are idiots and will sit there for 128 min trying to verify a block rather than build on a longer chain of smaller, shorter blocks. Also, you're being absolutist here, many would be satisfied with 2MB to study the effects on nodes, gain time to carefully and methodically roll out segwit, and time to plan a more permanent solution.
Why are you still entertaining the notion that a network wide hardfork can be deployed faster than SW can? No one proposes to rush through SegWit. It seems you are largely ignorant of what its deployment entail other than the couple posts you've read on reddit or Jeff's FUD. SegWit is opt-in and if service providers are pro-active it can be ready to roll out when the code is implemented into Core. At least that's what the dev of the 2nd most popular iOS app plans to do. Spare us your concern trolling unless you can provide a detailed account of the "massive upgrade" you talk about. |
|
|
|
Now the miners with the support of the economic majority can increase the blocksize limit to whatever size they want. Thanks to Bitcoin Unlimited we are no longer depended upon the choices handed down to us by any group of developers, Bitcoin Unlimited has given us an Unlimited range of choice.  Actually you are dependent on the choice made by the miners and not much else. To use your rhetoric you are effectively opening yourself to tyranny of the sybil majority. Proof of work can not be sybil attacked, neither can the will of the economic majority. I am surprised that you do not realize this yet. Whoever said we would sybil attack proof of work? By what metric do you gauge "the will of the economic majority"? Seems to me miners simply get to pick and choose whatever blocksize they're comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Now the miners with the support of the economic majority can increase the blocksize limit to whatever size they want. Thanks to Bitcoin Unlimited we are no longer depended upon the choices handed down to us by any group of developers, Bitcoin Unlimited has given us an Unlimited range of choice. Actually you are dependent on the choice made by the miners and not much else. To use your rhetoric you are effectively opening yourself to tyranny of the sybil majority. |
|
|
|
[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.
If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc. Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice. That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them. I think you will find that it is. If it was then BIP100 would've been implemented months ago. |
|
|
|
[
Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be.
If Core gets its way, then this point is moot. Its only a possibility ( to choose and follow) where miners are actually given the choice. Its Core's consuming fear that, if given the choice, miners will vote to go with bigger blocks, without the need of the extra baggage of ln, elements, sw, rbf, etc. Thats why everything on Core's so-called "Roadmap" involves zero choice. That's why we're only asking for miners' opinion and not for them to choose. It's not up to them. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is not about community, it is about money.
+1 |
|
|
|
Conspicuously missing from the Blockstream roadmap are any specifics such as:
At X time, the block size limit will be increased by Y amount
When X% of blocks are full, the limit will be raised by Y amount
At X difficulty level, X transaction fee level, X number of nodes, etc...
Simple: there is no plan to increase the block size through a hard fork anytime soon seeing as there is no valid reasons to do so. Fork off if that doesn't make you happy. Why don't you, small blockers, fork off? Most people want raised block size...most people = bitcoin...if you don't hear the community, YOU FORK OFF  the community is not represented by loud mouths on twitter and reddit you chump if you don't like Bitcoin as it is, YOU fork off. Nobody likes Bitcoin as it is. That's why everyone is screaming for more and better developers. Did you volunteer yet? Who's going to lead development of your new coin. Peter R? |
|
|
|
Conspicuously missing from the Blockstream roadmap are any specifics such as:
At X time, the block size limit will be increased by Y amount
When X% of blocks are full, the limit will be raised by Y amount
At X difficulty level, X transaction fee level, X number of nodes, etc...
Simple: there is no plan to increase the block size through a hard fork anytime soon seeing as there is no valid reasons to do so. Fork off if that doesn't make you happy. Why don't you, small blockers, fork off? Most people want raised block size...most people = bitcoin...if you don't hear the community, YOU FORK OFF the community is not represented by loud mouths on btctalk and reddit you chump if you don't like Bitcoin as it is, YOU fork off. |
|
|
|
Conspicuously missing from the Blockstream roadmap are any specifics such as:
At X time, the block size limit will be increased by Y amount
When X% of blocks are full, the limit will be raised by Y amount
At X difficulty level, X transaction fee level, X number of nodes, etc...
Simple: there is no plan to increase the block size through a hard fork anytime soon seeing as there is no valid reasons to do so. Fork off if that doesn't make you happy. |
|
|
|
I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.
It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first Miners switched to working on the shorter, old version chain because of a previously undiscovered database incompatibility. It was the decision most aligned with their long term economic interest which is connected to the overall health of the network... Bizarrely, it doesn't seem to be an argument against anything you quoted. That's a bizarre misrepresentation of what happened. Of course, if a contentious hard fork is forced through the situation would not be so simple as it create a clear divide with both sides claiming legitimacy. The previous 2013 fork was accidental and there was underlying agreement by everyone of what side should be picked. Contentious or not, the outcome would be the same. A majority of hashing power would pick a side, and that side would win, the other side would be orphaned off into the ether as the losers realized they were mining worthless coins. I know it bothers you, but miners decide. If you want to have a vote, start hashing. You assume the majority of hashing power agrees on the way forward when clearly that is not the scenario suggested. Miners will do their best to follow the economic majority and pick the chain they believe will be worth something. They don't exactly decide which one that will be. |
|
|
|
I think you are missing some important aspects to this, Bitcoin is not the same as other large scale social communities, Bitcoin has solved certain age old political problems exactly because of the ability to hard fork and split. The rules of Bitcoin can be changed, and this should and is determined by the market, unlike gold.
It seems you were not here during the 2013 hard fork and did not know what happened either. You just blindly against anything that is against your idealism regardless of facts, unfortunately talk does not change facts, get some facts first Miners switched to working on the shorter, old version chain because of a previously undiscovered database incompatibility. It was the decision most aligned with their long term economic interest which is connected to the overall health of the network... Bizarrely, it doesn't seem to be an argument against anything you quoted. That's a bizarre misrepresentation of what happened. Of course, if a contentious hard fork is forced through the situation would not be so simple as it creates a clear divide with both sides claiming legitimacy. The previous 2013 fork was accidental and there was underlying agreement by everyone of what side should be picked. |
|
|
|
In effect, it does no such thing. It does the exact opposite. It strives to return an equilibrium among all stakeholders.
It does. It pretends to use signalling from nodes to create your pretended equilibrium but this is easily skewed by a sybil attack. Miners are then left to pick a number while unable to discern between legitimate nodes and the sybil attacker. Yeah, thats a really valid vector: miner a: Hey, looks like we got 8000 extra nodes on line! miner b: Wow That looks legit. How long have they been online? miner a: About 8 minutes. And they are all voting for 16 Exabyte blocks. miner b: And whats the average for the last 1000 blocks? miner a: 1.42Mb miner b: Yup, sounds like 16 Exabytes it is then.... Your suggestion indicates a more trivial understanding than you are letting on. Nodes can gradually come online and slowly but surely prune low-bandwidth nodes first and continue to increase support for larger blocks, all while creating a false appearance of organic growth. I mean this is basic stuff and you can choose to ignore it but it pretty much makes the idea doa. |
|
|
|
This is a false representation of what Bitcoin Unlimited actually does which is to hand over all of the power to mining nodes.
No it is not. It does not hand over all the power to mining nodes. Please stop being so stupid - we know you are smarter than that.
In effect, BU removes any power the individual, independent users might've had.
In effect, it does no such thing. It does the exact opposite. It strives to return an equilibrium among all stakeholders. It does. It pretends to use signalling from nodes to create your pretended equilibrium but this is easily skewed by a sybil attack. Miners are then left to pick a number while unable to discern between legitimate nodes and the sybil attacker. |
|
|
|
The sixteen megabyte limit you are referring to is just the default setting, this can be changed by anyone using Bitcoin Unlimited. We could even all agree on a two megabyte blocksize limit and then that would become the new consensus through using Bitcoin Unlimited. It is about giving everyone the freedom of choice, this was always possible before, Bitcoin Unlimited only makes it more convenient by having this implemented within the client itself and an easy to use GUI. The name Bitcoin Unlimited does not refer to an unlimited blocksize but it refers to the unlimited choice and freedom it unlocks.
This is a false representation of what Bitcoin Unlimited actually does which is to hand over all of the power to mining nodes. In effect, BU removes any power the individual, independent users might've had. |
|
|
|
Because those who dont allow such huge blocks in their client simply contine on the chain with their choosen maximum blocksize. Although there may be many compelling chains with diferent maximum blocksizes, it doesnt make much sence to using the one what has little support.
At least this is how I understand it, and it is step from today central planning to more freedoom for everyone with the associated responsibility - if you choose wrong blocksize value, you might not be using the chain most Bitcoiners are on.
If this is truly the case and we are talking about chains splitting because of votes, then BU is worse than XT. Then I'm also starting to grasp the idea behind BU. The question is who hired the supporters? BU is quite possibly the most retarded idea ever and might challenge XT as the worst alt coins of all time. |
|
|
|
You are actually just confirming what I have been saying, I suppose we can agree on this point now then. The economic majority does not want to increase the blocksize limit now. I suspect that they will want to increase it soon however, Bitcoin Unlimited is still rising. Support for XT was rising too, until people realized it's really a piece of turd. What we can derive from this is that BU's got something coming its way since it's an even worst proposition. Oh well.. I guess you people will figure it out eventually |
|
|
|
Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.
Did you gather any opinions from miners asking them how they feel about creeping towards 1.75 MB equivalent sometime in 2017 with a soft fork that leaves all non-latest-Core-software nodes not validating transactions? The 75% increase is immediate once the code is implemented. Third-party software a free to enjoy additional headroom by adapting their code. you said somewhere else? Also, you will be functionally knocking off quite a few nodes from actually being nodes. Only 2000 of the 5500 nodes are running the latest Core release. That's what's in the Core roadmap. BTW I have no idea what you're talking about in the second line. Do you understand how softforks work? Oh, they'll still be there, but they won't be full validating nodes anymore. Clearer? They will be able to fully validate every transaction they're involved in. It's great to have a certain number of nodes on the network but the most important one is the one you run. As far as peers on the network are concerned their security model is in no way diminished so nice attempt at FUD but what you're describing applies to any other softfork. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
