poeEDgar,
you make some fair points.
Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.
2 MB seems plausible for the next year or so, and I've been following the stance of Core devs and XT devs. So far, Core devs made some interesting points, also XT especially in increasing the block size limit to scale. But what I cannot comprehend to is why the heck does these Core guys doesn't want to increase the blocks even with just a single megabyte? Workshops? What are we going to do with that? I'd say find a solution, not delay this problem by months or weeks before you Core guys talk again. You can't comprehend that they are in the business of Bitcoin extensibility and that they took $21M in venture capital and that they really actually do not want the main chain to scale beyond 1mb? I know that, but don't these guys get paid well in working for bitcoin? I don't like either sides, and I don't judge ad hominem, but these Core guys should do what's right for all and not what's right for their pocket. Same thing with Hearn and Gavin. If they want centralization, just create their own coin and not involve bitcoin or whatsoever. This problem just set drawbacks on bitcoin and are not actually helping in anyway. Well that's part of the problem. No, I don't think they were getting paid in working for Bitcoin. Gavin and 2 other people were getting paid for working on Bitcoin (formerly by the Bitcoin foundation) now from MIT. Greg and those guys I don't think were being paid so they formed a company and their plan was to tackle the scalability challenges and they had a certain plan and mindset about it. And now that they took VC money, they are even more biased that their way is the way to scale bitcoin. Blockstream was never meant as a transaction scaling solution. Liar. |
|
|
|
poeEDgar,
you make some fair points.
Still, I think it is outrageous that the devs refuse
to accept even Bip 102 with its 2 MB limit.
It's clear to me they do not want main chain scaling
and that it is counter to their business interests.
What's outrageous is you keep spreading the same lies you disingenuous troll. Devs have not refused any increase, they are actively considering how to best proceed. You're just a goddamn liar. We've continuously demonstrated the block size has no impact on their business interests how long can you wave it away? intellectual dishonesty
Seriously, how can you look at yourself in the mirror. |
|
|
|
And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.
This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo." That's simply dishonest. What's dishonest? As far as I know bitcoin still doesn't scale, still has a 1 mb limit and Core has no clear timely path to change this. Prove me wrong. Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values. Core developers are responsible for Bitcoin having scaled to support current network load and are dedicated to continue advancing that way. You have no shame. |
|
|
|
Problem #1: Bitcoin doesn't scale.
Problem #2: Core devs are incapable of making any decision in a timely manner.
Face it.
Fact #1: Bitcoin doesn't scale how you'd like it to. You will eventually get to accept this. Until then it seems your head is too far up into your ass to make any kind of valid judgement. Fact #2. You were "sold the controversy" that Core decision process was broken by two defectors who stifled technical discussions in exchange for populist politics. There is absolutely no grounding in this accusation and quite simply a devilish attempt to make a lie into an half-truth by suggesting any sane persons actually consider the disagreements between core developers to be irresolvable. You're a sheep. |
|
|
|
Why are you picking sides, making this a sectarian battle or sorts?
That's just how I see the current reality. Gavin, Mike, Jeff, some major companies, and most of the miners want to scale Bitcoin on the main chain.
Adam, Greg, and Blockstream don't. (They've said so in both their words and actions.) Oh so only them signed this letter heh? intellectual dishonesty
 |
|
|
|
I personally think 90% would be enough for a hard fork justification.
These damn percentages are meaningless and perpetuate the myth that somehow the miners "decide". They are nothing but an activation threshold for miners adoption of a proposal decided on by the economic majority. |
|
|
|
Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin. Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin. saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus. No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways. Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains. These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes. Did I read that right? We should lower consensus threshold as Bitcoin grows so as to make it more easy to achieve consensus!?! You're out of your mind I am out of mind while you are delusional  Can you even defend that position? If not GTFO of my thread you troll. Hard forks should be hard. We're only going to get more noobs like you trying to "fix" Bitcoin into what they "think" is right. Consensus means you respect a majority of vetos. Stop trying to make Bitcoin into a democracy so that a "majority" of you idiots can somehow influence the decision of sane people. |
|
|
|
Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin. Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin. saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus. No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways. Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains. These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes. Did I read that right? We should lower consensus threshold as Bitcoin grows so as to make it more easy to achieve consensus!?! You're out of your mind +1 I'm really trying to keep an open mind here, and debate this honestly. But that is just laughable. The idea basically guarantees that bitcoin will be broken into competing blockchains in the future. This is not the last controversy bitcoin will have. It is not the last hard fork bitcoin will have. Those who think we can solve all of tomorrow's technical problems today are simply naive. And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way. The first step in your rehabilitation will be admitting there is no problem with Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin. Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin. saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus. No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways. Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains. These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes. Did I read that right? We should lower consensus threshold as Bitcoin grows so as to make it more easy to achieve consensus!?! You're out of your mind |
|
|
|
Bitcoin XT is an attack on Bitcoin consensus. XT shills lead by Mike himself are trying to teach the controversy by spinning the debate into a governance issue. They mainly use two talking points: 1. The BIP resolution process is broken. They are attempting to sell people into thinking the existing consensus-based development process has not worked. Now understand they have been setting this up from the beginning, stifling discussion and launching a PR campaign led by Gavin blog posts rather than approach the issue within the existing developer community. Their solution: Mike Hearn, benevolent dictator. 2. That Bitcoin XT is just another Bitcoin implementation and in true open source nature we should have no right to oppose it. They argue their proposal respects the concept of "permissionless innovation". "Let's throw this irresponsible half-baked chinese number pos in the open and consensus shall decide. Free market guys right!!!?" This tactic has led a number of foolish sheep into this delusion that somehow there are problems within Bitcoin Core that are so absolutely irresolvable the whole development process should be thought again from the beginning starting with a central figure and a bunch of decentralization theater "implementations" non sense. Here's the kicker: they will pretend that this is how we all got started, with Satoshi, Gavin, blabla. All of this is a bunch of nonsense. You people have two things confused: reputation and authority. The development of Bitcoin began with Satoshi leading the charge not because "the people", "the community" had made him "benevolent dictator" but because he, of course, had the most influential reputation and weight in decision for being the creator of the system. Don't try to tell me he'd make changes without asking you noobs opinion because he obviously knew better than to do that. Had he stayed with us and grown around the Bitcoin development community it makes no sense to suggest he would have continued to claim "authoritarian control". A part of me is convinced he left partly to avoid this cesspool of power grabs. |
|
|
|
People who feel the need to call XT an altcoin (when the reality is that it will only fork if there's a supermajority of miners running it) are mischaracterizing it, which is a form of intellectual dishonesty. Apparently they need to try to control opinions because they are afraid of letting the economic majority do something that they don't agree with.
There's a reasoning behind calling XT an altcoin, to which I partly agree (though I think altcoin is too bold). Of course you are implying that you're right here, and they are wrong, while they think the opposite way. I just don't think there's anything bad in being afraid or suspicious when the economic majority is against you (in fact, it isn't). Quite the contrary, I think it's natural. Being afraid of 'small blocks' is nothing different. Bitcoin XT is an attack on Bitcoin consensus. XT shills lead by Mike himself are trying to teach the controversy by spinning the debate into a governance issue. They mainly use two talking points: 1. The BIP resolution process is broken. They are attempting to sell people into thinking the existing consensus-based development process has not worked. Now understand they have been setting this up from the beginning, stifling discussion and launching a PR campaign led by Gavin blog posts rather than approach the issue within the existing developer community. Their solution: Mike Hearn, benevolent dictator. 2. That Bitcoin XT is just another Bitcoin implementation and in true open source nature we should have no right to oppose it. They argue their proposal respects the concept of "permissionless innovation". "Let's throw this irresponsible half-baked chinese number pos in the open and consensus shall decide. Free market guys right!!!?" This tactic has led a number of foolish sheep into this delusion that somehow there are problems within Bitcoin Core that are so absolutely irresolvable the whole development process should be thought again from the beginning starting with a central figure and a bunch of decentralization theater "implementations" non sense. Here's the kicker: they will pretend that this is how we all got started, with Satoshi, Gavin, blabla. All of this is a bunch of nonsense. You people have two things confused: reputation and authority. The development of Bitcoin began with Satoshi leading the charge not because "the people", "the community" had made him "benevolent dictator" but because he, of course, had the most influential reputation and weight in decision for being the creator of the system. Don't try to tell me he'd make changes without asking you noobs opinion because he obviously knew better than to do that. Had he stayed with us and grown around the Bitcoin development community it makes no sense to suggest he would have continued to claim "authoritarian control". A part of me is convinced he left partly to avoid this cesspool of power grabs. |
|
|
|
Once again, Mike making more sense than the Blockstream clowns who want to wave a few workshops in your face and make you believe your opinion matters.
What are you suggesting? Whether or not the consensus process is broken, Gavin and Hearn's code needs to stand on its own two feet and face rigorous testing. Such a reckless approach to scaling will never be supported by those who have a real stake in bitcoin. I'm suggesting Mikes comments make sense. Blockstream's don't. Didn't Gavin run extensive tests on bigger blocks? More important, why is Blockstream stonewalling even bip102? Yes. Largely broken, half baked bunch of non sense. What exactly doesn't make sense in Blockstream's comment? I seen you commenting in another thread spouting about intellectual honesty, boy sometimes it looks to me as if we're not reading the same conversations. |
|
|
|
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free? Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example. I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues... No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive? Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers? For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable. My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things). Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks? A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want. Huh? How does that work if other miners are propagating blocks that are > 1MB...... Thats true, but typically download speeds are faster than upload speeds. This brings up the issue of SPV mining which Is going to have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I don't think that can be solved simply by keeping blocks small. Large, well-connected miners will soon benefit from near constant propagation time. Smaller miners (over Tor for example) will get drowned out the network. |
|
|
|
it is inevitable that bitcoin is/will go to another level where every major governments and corporations will want a piece of it.
It is not. Government control around the world is slowly disintegrating before our eyes. We only need to hold you animals off for so long. Yup and bitcoin will only accelerate that but it doesn't mean they won't try. They will. Don't expect governments to disappear though, they will adapt after hitting the hard reality of decentralization leaving them with less influence they currently have. Which is a good thing IMO. Bitcoin is a trojan horse. Let it infiltrate the actual power structures around the world that think they can control it like anything else. They might have some influences but it is limited and they will eventually hit the wall of decentralization. Just like anybody else. You want Bitcoin run by corporation puppets of the governement who the hell do you think you are fooling with you trojan horse preaching? |
|
|
|
Why scaling bitcoin would make it be less censorship-free? Well, does the solution allow full nodes to function over anonymizing networks like ToR, for example. I think you are confusing BIP101 and XT here. This arguable DDOS protection implemented in XT has nothing to do with scaling issues... No. I'm wondering how easy it would be to sync a client from scratch (something I find myself doing quite often) over ToR if huge blocks drastically increase the size of the chain. Also, what are the ramifications of mining over ToR, or even low bandwidth connections, if blocks are massive? Now put on your tinfoil hat and consider the future of internet censorship (a problem which already exists in some locations around the world). Would it be easier to maintain a system that requires more or less information to be shared between peers? For Bitcoin to truly be different than the status quo, it needs to function in places where getting information may be difficult (for varied reasons). Who cares how well it works in the best of circumstances, we need it to work in the worst circumstances imaginable. My vision for the future: A worldwide wireless mesh network which is capable of maintaining the Bitcoin network (among other things). Why cant I mine over TOR and use small blocks? A blocksize limit is a cap -- you can go smaller if you want. Because you will be run off the network by larger miners pushing big blocks |
|
|
|
Part of the forum's mission is to support the Bitcoin ecosystem as a whole. To this end, I'm happy to announce that the forum is a sponsor of the Montreal Scaling Bitcoin Conference, which will discuss Bitcoin's max block size issues from an academic and technical point of view. The first conference is focused on requirements: what we want Bitcoin to do, what is necessary for Bitcoin to continue functioning, etc. Specific proposals will not be considered at this conference, but will be considered at the later Hong Kong conference. This event will not be a debate, no decisions will be made, and it will not be political: it'll be entirely technology-focused. Since the forum is a sponsor, I received two free tickets. I can't attend, so I'll probably give these tickets away to forum users. You still have to pay for your own travel and lodging, so this is really just a $150 discount to a much larger expense. If you're interested in these tickets, please explain in this thread why you would be useful at the conference. (Don't PM me.) I might decide not to give these tickets to anyone in this thread, though. If you have a relevant academic background, the Conference might cover your expenses partially or completely. You should contact them about that. Thank you for the opportunity! I am currently on the fence about showing up but a chance to avoid ticket expense would be a huge incentive to make it work. (especially seeing as prices are set to increase tomorrow) I have been pretty vocal about the block size issue in the threads here on btctalk, reddit and twitter as they are really my only way to vent and air out my opinion on this subject. I live 2 hours away from Montreal in my part of town is.. inexistent. I was very curious about the event when it got announced but undecided on my ability to make it. I've never had the chance to meet fellow "bitcoiners" and I do consider I could bring some valuable thoughts to the table. My background is not technical, I am not a developer. My interest in Bitcoin spawns mainly from its socio-economic aspect and especially its sound economic principles. Despite that my general interest and curiosity have, I believe, allowed me to shape a clear picture of the incentives and different dynamics at stakes in the block size debate. I have been a loud opponent of XT & BIP101, not for their poor technological design and assumptions but for the political grounds they hail from. Fortunately I am happy to read the intent of the conference is to serve a productive outcome and that the boogeyman of "governance" should largely be ignored. To ask ourselves what we'd like Bitcoin to do is indeed a challenge given the crowd of people each claiming their own use case. I think it should be important during this conference that we observe and consider what Bitcoin does well, not what we'd like it to be. When Satoshi described Bitcoin as internet "cash" what exactly did he have in mind? What is the true breakthrough from Bitcoin's white paper? How exactly have we gotten here and what were the driving forces? Of course these are very hard questions given the tendency for everyone to each interpret facts their own way according to their individual experience and history with Bitcoin. If you ask me Bitcoin is about privacy and financial freedom. It promises to reinvent our economic lives and general human governance from the ground up. I am hoping we can build on top of its decentralized protocol an entirely new financial system by reducing trust as much as possible at the core and from there allow an ecosystem to grow around a whole decentralization spectrum. I don't believe it can achieve this in its current form and I am convinced that some of the tools and ideas I have seen shared by some of the very people that should be present at the workshop are key to enable the future I envision. For this reason it would be an absolute pleasure to have a chance to discuss and develop together with the other participant our understanding of Bitcoin going forward. You might've seen me being a loud mouth on twitter https://twitter.com/bergalex (but don't worry I can behave) |
|
|
|
The Developers have written an open letter to the community about Bitcoin scalability. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1168393.0They have done a lot of work and describe it here: Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.However, the real question for them is: Will they make a commitment to the principle of main-chain scaling?Will they support volume handling on the main-chain as a preference to off-chain solutions? 1). Bitcoin should be scaled so that transactions are handled on its main-chain, as a first and guiding principle. 2). Bitcoin's main-chain capacity should be allowed to scale at a rate broadly in line with the general improvement in global computing technology. How hard is it for them to publicly support 1&2 above? Unless they don't agree....? Bitcoin is based on notions of scarcity. Making room for every transactions in the world makes it worthless. |
|
|
|
IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system
Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea
I don't think its fair to compare Bitcoin to the FED. The users of Bitcoin are not central banks, they're regular geeks who want to buy coffee, digital goods and drugs. The network must fork/change to cater to the majority of users.  What a sad vision you have for Bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
THE BITCOIN HOLDERS!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
It's just a shame the BIP101 crowd are so against this dialogue
who is against the dialouge? Mike & Gavin for one apparently. So they actually said these workshops were a bad idea? Please show me that, I'd like to see. Pretty certain I've read on Twitter Mike has no plan of attending. You will also realize none of them signed the letter. I increasingly feel the urge to attend. Seem like we could be witnessing historic moment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
