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? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Irrelevant given that we have SW coming.
Dont be an idiot. Of course we dont. As you are fond of saying - its vaporware..... it's actually all in code, waiting to get on testnet by end of the month and to be merged soon enough  |
|
|
|
-snip-
For now, the consensus emerging from the economic majority is that the 1MB limit won't move.
You're free to discuss pipedreams scenarios but they're just that, delusions, and nothing that reflects current reality.
You have to admit that Core has a certain sort of inertia. There's a big chunk of operators still plugging along on previous versions of Core. I also haven't seen an alternative that has the level of ongoing support that I'm comfortable with... so far. I really had high hopes for some kind of good will compromise between the opposing forces (ala garzik), bringing us back together with a common purpose... but it appears that is not going to be the case.
 Irrelevant given that we have SW coming. |
|
|
|
BU can even be configured to mimic the behavior of BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103 or BIP202. Or it can be setup to behave exactly the same as a Core node as well, the choice is yours, in different words it is up to the free market. Considering all of the possible options of who decides I would argue that this is the best solution.
It's not. It's up to the miners. Stop promoting this misleading idea. Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus. Stop repeating your dull one-liners it really makes you sound like a robot. (a not very smart one) Nodes decide the code they run and if there was consensus amongst these peers that the block size should be increased then it would.
For now, the consensus emerging from the economic majority is that the 1MB limit won't move. You're free to discuss pipedreams scenarios but they're just that, delusions, and nothing that reflects current reality. |
|
|
|
BU can even be configured to mimic the behavior of BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, BIP103 or BIP202. Or it can be setup to behave exactly the same as a Core node as well, the choice is yours, in different words it is up to the free market. Considering all of the possible options of who decides I would argue that this is the best solution.
It's not. It's up to the miners. Stop promoting this misleading idea. |
|
|
|
Yes, there is a simple GUI where you can select several different variables within the client itself. Including max block size generated, max accepted blocksize and block depth. It is able of tracking a fork and once it reaches a particular block depth it can switch over. This all depends on the settings that the user chooses. By default Bitcoin Unlimited will behave exactly like Core until the majority of the hashpower starts to mine larger blocks.
Interesting. What is preventing entities from cheating the system by running thousands of clients with bogus votes? It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works. *facepalms* |
|
|
|
And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all
I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit. I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined. Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process? Nodes decide the code they run and if there was consensus amongst these peers that the block size should be increased then it would. Is that not "bottom-up" enough for your liking? |
|
|
|
So let's take another example: the gene pool of any given species. It's about resilience too.
Not useful enough genes exit the gene pool regularly, does that mean that the gene pool of any given species end up gravitating toward a single gene?
If low bandwitch nodes exit the nood pole that only means we will have a fitter node pool. It doesn't imply anything about the node count.
The issue is with the pace at which an uncontained block size would allow for large entities to capture the network. Your analogies are all pretty good but they're beside the point. Following your argument most of the nodes composing the network as we speak would vanish and would quickly turned into a specialized market likely to consolidate into few large entities. |
|
|
|
See comment from bitcoin.org owner above. Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech. You bedwetters need to cry about something else. |
|
|
|
Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.
I am afraid you are mistaken. Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy? The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force). Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time. The peer-to-peer network is not a production market. That was just an example which illustrates that in a real world environnement competition and selection are not antithecial. Low bandwitch nodes exiting the node pool doesn't imply nodes centralization. You need to get back with a better argument or accept that your conclusion is flawed. Yes it does because Bitcoin is not about efficiency but resilience. It ought to remain a low-latency network or else it inevitably leads to destruction of fundamental properties. https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ycizh/decentralizing_development_can_we_make_bitcoins/cycex9t?context=1 |
|
|
|
 It's #REKTING SEASON  |
|
|
|
Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.
I am afraid you are mistaken. Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy? The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force). Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time. The peer-to-peer network is not a production market. |
|
|
|
That you think that the miners incentives do not align with the users implies to me that you do not understand something very fundamental about Bitcoin. The miners are incentivized to do what is best for the network as a whole, if it was not for this fact, Bitcoin would not work. It is this underlying game theory, economics and psychology that allows the Bitcoin network to continue to operate and function the way that it does today.
Miners can continue doing their thing with 50 nodes on the network. They couldn't careless if nodes start dropping off. Hell if they wanted to you couldn't even know nodes are dropping off the network. That's why you'll never get it. You're too naive. |
|
|
|
In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on:
So according to you Bitcoin.org = Bitcoin Core? Makes sense. I do not see a counter argument here, I get the feeling that you are not interested in engaging in constructive discussion. I have already explained how Bitcoin unlimited works, it is actually relatively simple. The feature set has already been decided upon, in the future more features will most likely be added. We even have a formal decision making process in place which I would argue is actually superior to Core.
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articlesOfFederationThere is nothing to counter, you are telling me that the rules are yet going to be decided and then you tell me that it is already decided? Make up your mind. I'm asking a simple question, exactly what mechanism decides the block size and how. It seems like you do not get it, everyone essentially can decide the blocksize for themselves under Bitcoin Unlimited, it takes this power away from centralized development teams. In effect this would have to be a negotiation between the miners and the economic majority. If more people started running BU nodes then the miners could simply start mining bigger blocks as they see fit and appropriate. As opposed to the type of central economic planning that placing this power with a development team would necessitate, having multiple implementations of course expands this choice, however BU is even better since the blocksize limit would become a product of the emergent consensus of the Bitcoin network as a whole. Ultimately this would reflect the true supply and demand of block space as opposed to the arbitrary limits set by Core. If the current consortium of Bitcoin nodes and those who compose the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network decide the blocksize needs an increase it has ALWAYS been possible for them to locally adjust and compile their node to accept blocks of whatever size. It's a sign to how low and infantile the conversation has devolved that you continue to entertain the notion that the open-source development of Bitcoin is centrally developed and forced on Bitcoin users. Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable. This outright LIE that BU offers a market-driven solution is so asinine and disingenuous the notion is a disgrace to the credibility of anyone who dares participating in this manipulation. It leaves literally everything up to the miners. |
|
|
|
You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests. I also encourage people to read the discussion. It wasn't one sided (e.g., you can see luke-jr NACKed wait, what?). The funniest part was some XTer came in under the handle gladoscc pretending to support blockstream "signing off" on blocks. If any of you XT dead enders are or know gladoscc, let him know that was some Grade A trolling. gladoscc used to be TradeFortress iirc. Well known scammer yes. It's clear as day who you want to side with in this story. The rap sheet of most current XTards is long and tainted with numerous stories of scams and sociopathic conduct. Hearn Cypherdoc and his pussy posse Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation DeathAndTaxes Roger Ver JStolfi Lambie I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  |
|
|
|
You blockstreamers are truly beneath contempt at this point. I urge anyone to have a look at this discussion if you are in any doubt that bitcoin is being taken over by private interests. edit: I've just seen the commit. This is a new low point for Bitcoin. Since when do you care about Bitcoin lambie? |
|
|
|
In regards to Core attempting to censor Coinbase, you can follow the discussion here and decide for yourself what side you want to be on: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178I am happy that I am on the side of decentralization and freedom, which is what the original vision of Satoshi represented. Core is moving more towards the ideology of centralized control and authority, I do not think that Satoshi left just to allow some other group to exercise centralized authority and control over the protocol. Bitcoin is meant to be free, Cores opposition to the freedom of choice and their continued attempts at censorship only reveals the weakness of their position. You really can't keep Satoshi's name out of your mouth heh. |
|
|
|
Fuck off.
Bitcoin unlimited doesn't exist.
Wake up lil' brg444. It was all a bad dream. Bitcoin Unlimited isn't real. You're safe now with Mama Core. I guess you enjoy being the laughing stock of the dev community Peter  You might have convinced yourself that BU is a thing but clearly you've haven't thought this through properly. It's clear as day to anyone not delusional that what it proposes is simply impossible hence why it's nothing but vapor ware. Sure you put out a client where every local node is able to select their "acceptable" block size. Big deal. Such ingenuity! I guess if your intention is to routinely track consensus fork yourself off the network then you've got a thing.... It's a wonder Gavin has yet to comment on it since joining the mental ward bitco.in. Probably even he realizes how bat-shit crazy the idea is. |
|
|
|
back over 3000 that bull though shorters get #rekt
 Thanks Obama Blockstream! All that good momentum wasted by Coinbase XTards... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
