There are perfectly sensible, technical reasons to believe it is absolutely essential to keep the max block size reasonably close to the network actual average demand. Whether that is done through a flex cap or a fixed schedule it remains that we need to be absolutely conservation as we err in unknown territories.
More importantly, hitting or filling the blocks are absolutely not a bad thing and would likely develop into an healthy fee market. Obviously we cannot confirm this yet but I guess maybe we'll see next week? It is imperative that we get this right. I'm sure you have observed how contentious the hard fork is at this stage in Bitcoin's growth, it may be our last chance to arrive to consensus on one.
Finally we're getting somewhere. So you're not opposed to a flexible cap based on demand as long as it's handled conservatively? Was that really so difficult? Why couldn't you just say that a few weeks ago? The phrase "blood from a stone" comes to mind. Obviously you couldn't say it without throwing in some conspiracy guff and once again insinuating Gavin is the devil, but hey, it's still progress. Let me insist I'd much rather we keep current blocksize for at least next year. |
|
|
|
and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more. There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam. If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly. If that fee however becomes prohibitively expensive then it would no longer make sense to use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. It would be better to use a different cryptocurrency instead that does not have this restriction in place. You could also resort to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead, which is what the majority of the Core development team now think is the best way to "scale" Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree with their assessment. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor  The original vision of Bitcoin was that it should be low cost. That is why it would be more accurate to say that it should be the people that think Bitcoin should be high cost that should create the altcoin not the other way around. High volume at low cost, is better then low volume at high cost. Even from the miners perspective, in the long run this would be better for Bitcoin. Nowhere was it ever said the Bitcoin network should have a low cost to run. You leeches trying to externalize the cost to the users running the network have no claim here. Your "original vision" was misguided. The value of Bitcoin was never meant to be a low-cost payment system but primordially a low-trust layer. |
|
|
|
Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.
Still? My belief it's always an important aspect. Or did I misinterpret you? I get the impression at times they feel that anyone with a view supporting larger blocks doesn't care about jeopardising decentralisation. Like we've somehow forgotten that it's important. That's why they can only see it as an "attack", they genuinely believe we don't understand the importance of decentralisation. We do. But there are valid concerns about capacity and it's vital we get the balance right, so we propose smaller increases, or dynamic increases and decreases, or letting the miners choose, but apparently none of these are viable options to the handful of "asset class" militants who reject everything out of hand. It appears as though the only option they're willing to allow is " GTFO my chain, peasant". So what's the point in trying to engage with them? If they want a blockchain all to themselves, that's exactly what they're going to get when everyone else leaves them behind. Perhaps you can explain the centralization risks as many of us who want bigger blocks think the fears are exaggerated. For example, the storage space of the entire blockchain...Last I heard the prunable ledger was only 1 gig. A prunable ledger is useless as it does nothing but relay transactions. They do not help to keep the ledger decentralized. The problem starts with a precipitation of miner centralization brought by a screwed incentive which now enables the biggest, most connected ones to start mining bigger blocks at a rate the smaller ones could not keep up with. The real issue though is the impact it has on the nodes, who are not rewarded btw. This is where the "tragedy of the commons" plays out. As miners are incentivized to fill up their blocks regular nodes will be wiped off the map as only corporate set ups could service the appetite of the miners. That is how Bitcoin becomes "captured" by corporate interests as they grab control over its nodes governance. |
|
|
|
Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch.
Still? My belief it's always an important aspect. Or did I misinterpret you? I get the impression at times they feel that anyone with a view supporting larger blocks doesn't care about jeopardising decentralisation. Like we've somehow forgotten that it's important. That's why they can only see it as an "attack", they genuinely believe we don't understand the importance of decentralisation. We do. But there are valid concerns about capacity and it's vital we get the balance right, so we propose smaller increases, or dynamic increases and decreases, or letting the miners choose, but apparently none of these are viable options to the handful of "asset class" militants who reject everything out of hand. It appears as though the only option they're willing to allow is " GTFO my chain, peasant". So what's the point in trying to engage with them? If they want a blockchain all to themselves, that's exactly what they're going to get when everyone else leaves them behind. Nonsense. You need to understand that the bigger blocks that are being pushed today is literally the same as pushing for centralization. Purely scaling is not "only" a matter of blocksize anyway. Moreover, there aint no testing, no data, no nothing. So imho people against such reckless and clueless increase are the ones that actually cares for the sake of bitcoin. You're being mindfucked hard : either you get it, or you dont, but then it will not be a great loss once you fork outta here. x1000 DooMAD you are in way over your head you need to step back from it and gather your thoughts you are currently playing right into their hands. |
|
|
|
Fork you man there is no alternative to be found to bitcoin! Cant you just get it?
Im starting to be really irritated by your constant fud and unfounded, untested, illogical bullshit
such ignorance wtf.
Cant wait for you sheeple to Fork be Fuck off.
So to clarify, regardless of how many people (Sheeple? Really? Could you be any less mature?) push for larger blocks because it's an entirely legitimate and acceptable view, until the blocks are regularly full and the mempool starts to grow as well, you will staunchly and vehemently oppose any proposals that involve an increase? Even resorting to baseless accusations and character assassinations of any developers proposing a fork? Even though that will degrade the service for the average user? Is that pretty much the sum of it? Constant FUD and derision of anything that differs to your equally untested view? There's literally no reasoning with you ( or brg444, or iCEBREAKER, or your other fellow cronies feeding off MP's elitist rhetoric). Despite every attempt to find common ground with you, you simply don't want there to be any. Even when we acknowledge your view that decentralisation is still an important aspect and we shouldn't go too crazy with the blocksize, you still won't move an inch. Why should anyone acknowledge your view if you won't acknowledge theirs? When the majority find benefit in scaling, you're more than welcome to stay behind and trade amongst a small handful of noisy extremists who are incapable of allowing compromise. Everyone else will leave you in the dust. That's how it'll end. How many strawmen, lies and general butthurt can you fit in one post. WOW The "majority" you speak of doesn't exist. It is a product of "the masses" own hubris and incapacity to process that Bitcoin is not a democracy and that if they're poor, no amount of social media upvotes, likes, tweets or medium articles is gonna change anything about Bitcoin's governance. The latter is executed by people who pay and maintain the system. The miners, the nodes, and most importantly the holders (and yes the amount of bitcoin you have in your wallet weights in the discussion). The number of fiat showing in your bank account though, is irrelevant. Yes this goes for the VCs, bankers, entrepreneurs. Now you need to reconcile with the fact that it has been a long going attempt to weaken Bitcoin through centralization under capture of corporate interests. Understand that way before the block size debate really started getting traction from a post by Matt Corallo on the bitcoin dev list, Gavin was running around every telling all the Bitcoin companies around that the blocksize was a no-brainer issue. These same start-ups went to all the VCs in the country selling them on models all most likely built on ridiculous assumption about the scale of mainchain transaction growth. Visa number eventually? Why not? "It's just a number, right?" These same startups after a couple of months are starting to see their funding dry up but they can't go back to their VC with a 7 tps controversy. Now rather than blame their poor business acumen and false expectations they are lobbying their old friends from back in the Bitcoin foundation days. After thinking twice it came to me that Gavin most likely had no difficulty convincing them to sign this letter. There are perfectly sensible, technical reasons to believe it is absolutely essential to keep the max block size reasonably close to the network actual average demand. Whether that is done through a flex cap or a fixed schedule it remains that we need to be absolutely conservation as we err in unknown territories. More importantly, hitting or filling the blocks are absolutely not a bad thing and would likely develop into an healthy fee market. Obviously we cannot confirm this yet but I guess maybe we'll see next week? It is imperative that we get this right. I'm sure you have observed how contentious the hard fork is at this stage in Bitcoin's growth, it may be our last chance to arrive to consensus on one. |
|
|
|
and were dealing with a possible 10 day backlog, attacks are not a way to get to a better coin but more a way to divide the forks and users more. There will always be an ambient backlog, just as there will always be cosmic background spam. If my tx is urgent, I will include an appropriate fee and it will be prioritized accordingly. If that fee however becomes prohibitively expensive then it would no longer make sense to use the Bitcoin blockchain directly. It would be better to use a different cryptocurrency instead that does not have this restriction in place. You could also resort to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead, which is what the majority of the Core development team now think is the best way to "scale" Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree with their assessment. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0If they can't pay for Bitcoin they can phork their own coin for all I care it won't mean anything for Bitcoin. Why? Because these persons are poor |
|
|
|
Those changes (special treatment for Tor exit nodes, downloading a list) haven't been a point of contention for developers as far as I know. It would be silly to assume they're not going into the next revision of core.
 This exact change was made into a pull request to Core by Mike and was generally opposed by most of the other developers (except maybe Gavin of course...) It was supported, except for the inclusion of IP addresses in the Core client which was considered 'centralization', which on the threats of centralization is pretty damn small. If we really want to focus on centralization problems, here's the biggest target: Anyone that talks about centralization threats and isn't working on ways to make small pool mining more competitive is really sticking their head in the sand. We are a few police raids at 3-4 chinese mining farms away from censorship, double spend hell or just a plain 'orphan every non-controlled block' DoS attack. Hmm no I'm quite certain it received a majority of NACK given it is absolutely useless against spam and I believe the word you're looking for is not centralization but "trust" as in: a list is necessarily maintained by a third-party, something Bitcoin has historically avoided at all cost and for very good reasons |
|
|
|
How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin?
Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying? Just quoting this again for posterity. |
|
|
|
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin? Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying? You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger. So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something? Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply. Confusing the ledger composed of bitcoins with the chain... now that is something else! Guys it looks like we had it wrong all along! We're not actually buying bitcoins! We're buying parts of the blockchain!  Do you have any concept of what "the chain" is? Imma let you in on a killer deal: if you decide to run a full node, you will not only get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain, you'll get ALL OF IT without having to spend a dime. Now isn't this AWESOME?  If you're not gonna answer my question, then it is fair to assume you don't have an answer. What question? Do you realize how utterly confused you are, talking about buying fractions of the blockchain? |
|
|
|
The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that. Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.
Ah come on, you. must. be. joking. He doesn't even know someone tried that already. Paycoin was it called? |
|
|
|
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin? Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying? You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger. So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something? Nope. I get one twentyone millionth of the whole damn chain. 4 eva. If you think that's too much, then perhaps you are selling your coins too cheaply. Confusing the ledger composed of bitcoins with the chain... now that is something else! Guys it looks like we had it wrong all along! We're not actually buying bitcoins! We're buying parts of the blockchain! Do you have any concept of what "the chain" is? Imma let you in on a killer deal: if you decide to run a full node, you will not only get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain, you'll get ALL OF IT without having to spend a dime. Now isn't this AWESOME? |
|
|
|
Again, it is possible that the devs do not see how wrong that argument is?
The max block size that was put into the rules in 2010 was not "1 MB" but "a value small enough to prevent big-block attack but still much larger than traffic so that it would not create spurious scarcity, and every transaction would be confirmed as quickly as possible." Can you provide source for this or did you just make it up? There is NO evidence that the centralization of mining that happened so far was due to the natural growth in the block sizes, or that such growth would affect it in the foreseeable future. That is just one of several dishonest FUD arguments that Adam Back used at one point. The economies of scale that resulted in concentration of mining are due to the savings in the costs of equipment, space, electricity, cooling, personnel, management, etc. that exist for bulk purchasers and for certain geographic locations.
You are again completely fabricating a straw man...? That's absolutely not what I'm saying and I don't believe I've ever read anything of the sort by Adam. As for increasing block size having an effect on mining centralization if we do not proceed carefully and by increments there are several technical aspects that can lead to this conclusion. You need to try harder trollfi this isn't up to your standards... |
|
|
|
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin? Easy. 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain. I answered your question, now you answer mine. If I'm not buying space on the blockchain when I'm buying bitcoin, what am I buying? You are buying space on the ledger, not the block. You need to pay to move these bitcoins to a different address on the ledger. So for 1 bitcoin I get 1/21,000,000th of the whole chain? Are you for real? Were you hit over the head with something? |
|
|
|
This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control?
Centralized control works for linux. It's better than the decision-making gridlock of the core devs. To answer your question, we already have centralized control of code development, but an alt could have better management of code development. Maybe they just want a crypto that scales better and starting over from scratch is easier than convincing people like you to improve Bitcoin. They could pay for the marketing by selling pre-mined coins and kickstart mining with a guaranteed price floor. The maximum it would take to absolutely guarantee a 100MM market cap would be $100,000,000 but would almost certainly be a fraction of that. Throw in a plunge protection team to smooth out the most extreme volatility and you'd have a coin anyone and everyone would want to buy or mine.  You're hopeless. How can you possibly hold on to your bitcoins while entertaining these thoughts. This is really all kinds of wrong I'd be embarassed if I were you  I hope for your sake you are trolling me |
|
|
|
If I'm not buying blockspace when I'm buying bitcoin, then what the hell am I buying? You can't charge rent on something you've already sold. That's not how business works. That's how the State works.
"Which is better - to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away or by three thousand tyrants one mile away?" ~ Mather Byles
I dunno, Mather. Looks like the same shitty deal to me.
How can you possibly equate buying bitcoin with buying block space How's that supposed to work? How many "blockspace" do I get for 1 bitcoin? |
|
|
|
Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points.
It must be 4am where you are. You should get some sleep. You are starting to blub. We don't all get the chance to rotate at the troll desk  |
|
|
|
Why?? Do you think that pointing you out as a fool should be a monopolized industry as well "Speak of the devil...." Just sayin', dude. So far you have argued that the definition of cash is 'wrong' and that satoshi got bitcoin wrong day one. You think everyone is wrong, and you constantly support this by suggesting that we should all just 'educate' ourselves. But in reality, all you have is your version of what you believe to be true. Your 'truth' is that bitcoin is fundamentally broken, and the only way to fix it is by going off-chain. And to make that more profitable in the short term, you need a fee market to drive traffic to it - ergo SmallBlocks. Which is fine. But it is flawed. I contend that: 1. Bitcoin isn't broken. Its evolving - everything is on the table. There is no 'single' solution. 2. Its utility value far outweighs your ludicrous need to have it solely as a 'store of value' 3. Off-chain solutions provide an invaluable aid to scaling bitcoin, but they must compete on a level playing field with on-chain transactions. 4. Any solution that depends on artificially throttling capacity is flawed. I can tell you woke up in a good mood I can count at least 2-3 strawmen just from this one post! Impressive! I retort that: 1. Bitcoin isn't broken. It will simply never scale to accommodate mainstream consumption levels under existing design. Maybe you wanna try Visa or Square? 2. It's principal utility is absolutely as I've described it: a deflationary, censorship resistant form of money. The inefficient and rather handicapped "payment network" sitting on top is a necessary by-product but unfortunately design with security and decentralization in mind, not worldwide payment processing. 3. False dichotomy here. Both provide their own benefits and trade-offs. 4. It is more of an absolutely necessary throttle on resource consumption to prevent deadly centralization of the system. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has an history and infrastructure that cannot be easily replicated.
Newsflash, dipshit: Bitcoin's infrastructure is as a payments network. Bitcoin's history means zip diddly squat if some other alt is backed by a bank with a 50 Billion dollar market cap. In crypto 5 might as well be 5000 when referring to the competition.
against another grass roots bootstapped alt, yes. Against an alt backed by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign, no. Your point about gold's transaction throughput is laughable. The limits on gold transaction and its very real cost is considerable given its physical nature. Even 7 tps accross the world is better than the transportability of gold.
yes, but your fees make the divisibility of BTC much more limited. I'm pretty sure there are far more than seven global gold transactions per second. Even more when you count micropayments, like buying shots of Goldschlager. And, other than Government thugs, no assholes arguing that we should minimize them. Comparing Bitcoin's network effect to MySpace where there is essentially no cost to the users for switching networks confirms you as just another simple noob. Did you buy this account? You can't have possibly registered in 2011 and utter such idiocy.
What's the cost of trading BTC for any alt on any one of a dozen exchanges? A fraction of a percent? The only costs are paying your goddamn miner fees and waiting for your confirmations. It's not the switchers like me you need to worry about. It's the people who enter crypto going straight to the alt that better suits their needs. It's early but that might just deserve our award for stupid post of the day. Might as well say people will throw themselves at Govcoin while you're at it This is just beyond hilarious. Why the fuck would you even think a centralized payment network supported "by a Fortune 500 company or billionaire with a slick multi-million dollar marketing campaign" would bother creating a cryptocurrency. Do you understand the necessity for the blockchain and POW design and why it is totally worthless and ridiculously inefficient under centralized control? By the way I'm certain Germany would kill to be able to get the Fed to return their gold to them even if they'd have to wait for the next block And finally of course you would totally miss the point about "the cost" of switching network. I encourage anyone to invest into an alt that suits their needs ...... and it's gone! "Newsflash dipshit" Bitcoin would be worth absolutely fuck all if it was valued for the success (or lack thereof) of its "payment network". It's only worth anything because people have decided to trust a portion of their wealth into it. Are you cypherdoc's brother by any chance? This sounds like some of the stupid shit he'd say to hopelessly defend his points. |
|
|
|
In other words:
The value of Bitcoin is its utility,
The utility of Bitcoin is its ability to store wealth.
Any alarm bells ringing?
Circular argument, anyone?
Seems like you're twisting things a bit. Maybe I ought to clarify? The value of Bitcoin is in being deflationary, censorship resistant form of money. I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this |
|
|
|
We should absolutely avoid the danger of instilling into Bitcoin users some kind of belief that they have a right to free transactions.
This post is full of misguided assumptions. It should come as a rational observation considering the shortcomings you have pointed out that there exist absolutely no incentive to purchase bitcoins to make purchases. As is yours. Making the assumption that bitcoin was never intended to be a transaction system is probably the biggest assumption of them all. Were do I mention that Bitcoin is not intended for transactions? see above I see. Maybe that came off wrong but that wasn't my point. The point being it makes little sense for the average consumer to have to jump through all the hoops of buying bitcoins just to make a purchase. Now don't get me wrong it might serve some niche use cases but this is simply not something you can sell to mainstream consumers, even if they can make 100000000000000 transactions for free. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
