Devs' inability to solve the current conflict inside community already proved their low IQ in social science
Personally I think this characterisation is a "cheap shot" (but yes I know it is popular amongst those trying to attack the core devs). I am not a "core dev" and actually none of the "core devs" even particularly like me - so the fact that you (and others) think that I am partisan just shows your own "low IQ". (for some reason you just can't understand that I am not paid by anyone for my thoughts - and that is actually sadder than whatever rubbish you want to think about the core devs) I say low IQ because there is an obvious answer to the problem and they failed to give the right answer: Don't think you are the god and make compromise to reach consensus with other actors Gavin has demonstrated his ability to make compromise in negotiation with users (from 20MB to 8MB to 2MB), while the other devs do not make any compromise, they just play and delay and push in their own agenda continuously while ignoring user's request, isn't it enough clear that they are so stupid in social science? |
|
|
|
Decision making should not be done by programmers, because they don't know anything about market/economy/finance
That very much depends upon what kind of decisions we are talking about. When the decisions for Bitcoin are to do with technical things (which so far they still should be until we really do have a "huge demand for coffees") then I think it is better to listen to the engineers than to those who run exchanges that are only interested in making profits and co-operating with governments to spy on people. Every technical solution has an economy/financial outcome, there are many ways to solve one problem, the technical solution itself is the least concern, you can always hire thousands of programmers to realize an implementation, but everyone will see what you want to achieve. Currently we are witnessing devs killing bitcoin by turn it into a private company's network, but since bitcoin is used voluntarily, people will just leave or fork Devs' inability to solve the current conflict inside community already proved their low IQ in social science |
|
|
|
When miners had over 40% hash power, they can voluntarily redirect the hash power to reduce the risk of any single party taking control of more than 40%, but when devs had over 90% of control over code, they don't do anything to reduce their control, but centralized more and more and never listen to users, this is enough reason to prevent new users from using bitcoin
You need to listen to yourself - it isn't a question of percentages. You can't have morons take over control of a project (no matter if 90% of people want them to) otherwise you end up with a train-wreck. Do you advocate letting morons run a project (just because they might be a statistical majority or even super-majority)? Decision making should not be done by programmers, because they don't know anything about market/economy/finance The programmer's only ability is to translate human ideas into machine language, they are just translators, nothing more. The world is not run by translators. Their idea of artificially cap the transaction capacity and squeeze the users into their prepared out of date 3rd party solutions like alt-coin (side chain) and prepaid card (LN) is of ultimate stupidity |
|
|
|
The stupidity of core devs in economy and finance is endless. They think that users are all so stupid that they will tolerate an artificial rise of fee created by them, while in reality the speculative users just dump their coin and move to some alt-coins, and the users with real demand will start to fork it and turn bitcoin back to the long term road map envisioned by Satoshi
If there is going to be a rush to alts then shouldn't you actually be happy about that? Personally I don't think we want just one blockchain anyway so I am not really concerned if we end up with many. I've done with alt-coins since 2012, never touched them again, but current centralization of development in bitcoin really make me consider an alt-coin, but unless you fix this centralization of development problem, any alt-coin will have the same fate. I still hope that we can fix this problem on bitcoin itself When miners had over 40% hash power, they can voluntarily redirect the hash power to reduce the risk of any single party taking control of more than 40%, but when devs had over 90% of control over code, they don't do anything to reduce their control, but centralized more and more and never listen to users, this is enough reason to prevent new users from using bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
The stupidity of core devs' knowledge in economy and finance is endless. They think that users are all so stupid that they will tolerate an artificial rise of fee created by them, while in reality the speculative users just dump their coin and move to some alt-coins, and the real bitcoiner will start to fork it and turn bitcoin back to the long term road map envisioned by Satoshi
|
|
|
|
If Bitcoin has to be scaled via hard forks pushed by a small group, or if a small group (i.e. 2 miners) can block scaling by blocking a size change, then Bitcoin has to fall under control of a very few number of players to succeed. This contradicts your previous stance.
Of course any small group of people do not represent the consensus, that's why we need a large scale vote and count everyone's opinion through miners vote with their hash power, and service providers asking their customers (you can not fake hash power, and you can not fake long term users on platforms) Currently for those who voted with their hash power, classic has the majority hash power, and even user number is several times more than core users. And for those who don't vote (currently over 90% of mining hash power has not voted yet) it means they don't care, we can assume that they want bitcoin to run on its historical trajectory (non-full blocks and low fee), so they can also be assumed to support classic. Or, we can assume that they don't command enough knowledge to do the vote, so their vote can not be counted. But since in bitcoin's world no one is responsible for your financial loss, I think everyone who is enough serious about his investment should participate in the vote  |
|
|
|
But without a healthy fundamental, they can't cash out after the rally, and they risk of helping early adopters to cash out during the rally, so when facing uncertainty, they will stay out until dust is settled. From long term view, the bitcoin will not succeed if it can't prove itself as not controlled by any single entity or a group of powerful players
This is correct, and for that reason Bitcoin should avoid a hard fork at all cost. Most users and miners know it. If the hard consensus rules in Bitcoin change, a hostile takeover by a single entity or group of powerful players already happened. A hard fork is totally harmless if there is no major merchant and user support, someone in china is talking about making a hard fork first to prove that it is harmless Only a 50-50 divide between users and miners and merchants will be a disaster, and that's why you need at least 75% hash power and major user support And by not making a hard fork to raise the block size limit (which majority of people want), you also risk heavily affecting fundamentals: 1. people will realize that bitcoin is not capable of doing lots of transactions without third party solutions 2. people will realize that bitcoin programmers can be controlled by enterprises and totally changed to something else. As a result they vote with their feet, and without new buyers every day to absorb those 5000 coins sell pressure, exchange rate will only go down long term wise |
|
|
|
So a small number of large mining pools can dictate by consensus among themselves which version is used to mine, and therefore which version is carried forward.
No, miners have no word in this. It is what users use and merchants accept that matters. If those pools decide to use a different consensus, they will just mine invalid blocks, and invalid coins. The miners can choose to ignore blocks produced by other miners, of course, but stick to the consensus rules. This is called a 51% attack, and is a real danger. Without hash power (the cost of mining) any coin's price that merchants and users use will drop like a waterfall until it reaches the production cost, it is called arbitraging: You can always borrow coin and sell and mine it back if the exchange rate is much higher than production cost In my experience the relationship is opposite. Back in 2011 the price rised quickly, and people bought large farms of graphics cards to mine coins. When the price fell back, and FPGAs came to market, people sold their GPUs to gamers. The hashrate even went down a while after the 32 USD price peak, since the GPUs weren't profitable any more. If you compare price and hashrate graphs, it is very clear that hashrate lagged the price. If a lot of hashrate forks out, other people will come in and replace it. The cost per hashrate hasn't changed. The price bubble of course is pushed up by whales, most notably from China (Their whales has pushed up the price of everything that is scarce by at least 100x , from some special kind of wood to some special kind of dog) But without a healthy fundamental, they can't cash out after the rally, and they risk of helping early adopters to cash out during the rally, so when facing uncertainty, they will stay out until dust is settled. From long term view, the bitcoin will not succeed if it can't prove itself as not controlled by any single entity or a group of powerful players |
|
|
|
Thought experiment. Miners with the major hash power (over 51%, let us even say 75%) have consensus on one fork with 2MB blocks with some arbitrary low fee, however, users and merchants only accept transactions using the other fork, with 1MB blocks and a high enough fee to change the profitability of the mining. Wouldn't this result in the users and merchants in the 25% fork to force the miners in the 75% fork to change, since the miner's clients will demand the higher block rewards?
The minority chain will be attacked anytime by major hash power and all the transactions on it will be cancelled after being confirmed, no one will risk real money on that, the amount of cash flow on the minority chain will be minimal |
|
|
|
1) Logically the devs should have very little power over the direction of BItcoin, and the users (as a whole) should have a lot of power over the direction of Bitcoin
I concur. However, when deciding between proposals developers should have more 'power' (because let's face it, the average human is pretty stupid/ignorant). I hope that you understand what I mean by this. In my understanding and also history records, scientists and programmers are very bad at making economics and financial decisions, because they lack of the overview of how human and society works and they all focus on small details while ignoring the most important things There is no lack of examples: Isaac Newton went flat broke chasing a stock bubble, and a group of Nobel price winners made a hedge fund LTCM, using sophisticated mathematical model to forecast the market, its collapse almost dragged US into recession Currency's value is all about trust and stability, and so far many things core devs do (like segwit and artificially limiting capacity) are making bitcoin worse in these two aspects. I usually see this kind of stupidity from many developers so I'm not surprised. Maybe in 10 years they will learn |
|
|
|
So a small number of large mining pools can dictate by consensus among themselves which version is used to mine, and therefore which version is carried forward.
No, miners have no word in this. It is what users use and merchants accept that matters. If those pools decide to use a different consensus, they will just mine invalid blocks, and invalid coins. The miners can choose to ignore blocks produced by other miners, of course, but stick to the consensus rules. This is called a 51% attack, and is a real danger. Without hash power (the cost of mining) any coin's price that merchants and users use will drop like a waterfall until it reaches the production cost, it is called arbitraging: You can always borrow coin and sell and mine it back if the exchange rate is much higher than production cost This will make sure that any attempt to move away from the major hash power will cause the biggest financial loss. And that's the reason Satoshi said the major CPU vote is the only consensus |
|
|
|
|
Long term wise, the exchange rate is decided by the net purchase order everyday, and a large part of them comes from new users
Now new users will have no reason to purchase bitcoin due to several major properties are broken: Decentralization is broken by HongKong closed door meeting, low fee and fast transaction is broken by the full block and long queue, 21million limited supply can be changed by a softfork, and censorship resistance is challenged by chainalysis
Before, every time when bitcoin exchange rate drops, I will buy without doubt, now I dare not. $200 is not so far away
|
|
|
|
|
similar to a couple of difficulty jump
|
|
|
|
We all want larger blocks, but we want it done with competent devs...so not the Classic crew.
Nothing prevent competent devs from submitting codes to Classic, vise versa. And competent devs should follow Satoshi's vision, not Blockstreams, Adam Back has proved that he is very poor in making economic related decisions, so his vision that side chain and LN will get wide adoption is a joke. Just look at 21inc's Lightning Network, if there is any strong market demand for this kind of functionality, they will be sold out immediately. But the reality is that no one cares about this so called micro payment channel |
|
|
|
Huge amounts of network traffic, most likely another spam attack, this is the highest I have seen at a queue of almost 30MB.
Maybe not, today is salary day, most of the retail level transactions happen this week |
|
|
|
|
Not even a chance if we can't fix this 2MB hard fork, might drop to much lower level by then
|
|
|
|
but devs have no power at all, if a group of devs don't produce the software that users and miners want to use, some other group of devs will...
That's only true if you have lots of alternative implementations, and when there are lots of alternative implementations, a fork will happen sooner or later when two different implementations differ too much in design philosophy. But they can't fork since that will destroy the promise of limited coin supply, so eventually they have to come to agreement or make compromise, otherwise it will be deadlock or hash war ... war never changes |
|
|
|
Current network already can handle traffic at 16MB,..
There are many of us who don't have the bandwidth to run a full node at home right now and are going to be forced to only run hosted nodes at 15 dollars a month and up because of the capacity increase in April. You are citing theoretical best performance networks when what we should be focused on is finding a balance where we don't have progressively more nodes dropping off and higher costs to run a full node. Advocating for extreme blocksizes ostracizing many people and places a dangerous precedence that we can simply scale bitcoin in a really sloppy manner by increasing the blocksize. It is also extremely inconsiderate to not acknowledge many of the other concerns with TOR , and the firewall in china when considering the impact that a large block size will have upon the users. Yes, there are some difficulties for individual home users, but similar to settlement and clearing based design, I prefer a settlement and clearing design for data traffic instead of financial transactions: The settlement layer is enterprise level bitcoin mining hubs and full nodes around the world run by bitcoin companies (there are thousands of them today, should be enough to reach the same level of decentralization today - 6000+ full nodes, and they have motivation to run them due to their own business requirement), and the layer two is home users running SPV client or pruned nodes, webwallet, exchanges etc... The settlement layer can afford magnitudes higher bandwidth, also the processing power is much higher. And layer two can use a variety of different off-chain transactions to reduce the traffic on-chain and get instant confirmation and zero fee /refund benefits Regarding the TOR, if you have specific reason to use this kind of service, then you should use an alt-coin, which is much less regulated. Indeed, china's firewall is the biggest question now, but if there is a bandwidth bottleneck, I think in that case sidechain/LN does not help either, since they just moved the transaction out of bitcoin data traffic to some other type of data traffic, the total bandwidth requirement do not get less. Suppose you are sending 1 bitcoin from china to US, they would have to send exactly the same amount of transaction data no matter what technology they use (maybe even more data need to be sent) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
