You can enlighten them, but it might take decades. Remember those genius who only get acknowledged after their death or even several hundred years later? Being too advanced is a disadvantage
If the block size debate has demonstrated anything, it's that there's a fundamental lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works. If you're going to the moon, would you like your spaceship built by a handful of informed engineers, or by the average tax payer?
Relevant quote. If you want to go to moon, you need centralized NASA. But this is not how bitcoin works, in a decentralized system, knowledge is much less important than cooperation, without cooperation you are not going anywhere. You can not reach consensus over a complicated idea since that is out of the reach of the comprehension of blind majority, thus it will get rejected |
|
|
|
Having too much wisdom is a dangerous thing, it might drag you too far away from majority and you will be isolated
Of course your plan is to follow the blind majority. Why does this not surprise me? You can enlighten them, but it might take decades. Remember those genius who only get acknowledged after their death or even several hundred years later? Being too advanced is a disadvantage |
|
|
|
When your 1GB hard drive is full, you don't buy 1.1 GB hard drive, you buy 2GB or 3GB hard drive
When your 1Ghz CPU is too slow, you don't buy 1.1Ghz CPU, you buy 2-3Ghz CPU
(of course recent years CPU upgrade only gives you about 20% increase in performance so I have not upgraded for years, therefore the block size bump can be dangerous without sigop limitation )
When your 1MBps Network is too slow, you don't buy 1.1Mbps, you increase to 10Mbps
Any upgrade less than 2x is a maintenance release
I got a 4 TB HDD drive. But I also got a few small SSDs. I got an old dual quad core server, so that's 8 cores, or 16 threads with hyper-threading. I think that's the trend now, get more cores. New server processors come with 12 cores or more. I've seen 18, and I'm sure I read somewhere about a 64 core Intel Xeon. Has 48 GB of RAM. That's too much for a desktop, but that's nothing compared to servers of today in 2016 (they have 128 or 256 GB of RAM, and root hint DNS servers are supposedly 4 TB of RAM.) Everybody get gigabit networks now. Matter of time before more people are on gigabit internet speeds as well. That's the benefit of simplicity if you just keep raising the block size limit, just keep adding more capacity on everything and solve all the problems  And it will create demand for the industry and create jobs, good for economy and society |
|
|
|
Simple analogy will get more consensus because that's how majority of the users can understand  You mean that's how you understand it because of your lack of knowledge? Don't push it onto the users. The analogy is false and can not be applied here. Having too much wisdom is a dangerous thing, it might drag you too far away from majority and you will be isolated |
|
|
|
You can assume that everyone will immediately update to Classic nodes and therefore that only one chain will survive. But that's unlikely. I sure won't be updating.
You'll probably be DUMPING!!!  Well, that depends how it pans out.  Yes, dumping is a realistic option. So is double spending on one chain vs. the other. Or some combination. It will be interesting if the hard fork breaks consensus, I'll say that much. I know that I will be dumping both chains if we fork to a new client. I will pick up your major chain dumps  |
|
|
|
When your 1GB hard drive is full
When your 1Ghz CPU is too slow
When your 1MBps Network is too slow
...
Comparing apples and oranges as always. Find a better analogy, this one doesn't work. Simple analogy will get more consensus because that's how majority of the users can understand |
|
|
|
This is IMHO Bitcoin's greatest strength and greatest weakness..
I, and many others I'm sure, feel that a stable protocol, immutable and set in stone, would be a very positive thing. v1.0 if you will. But being flexible also has it's upside.
Imagine if the structure of Gold, at an atomic level, kept changing ? This would not be cool.
People can not change the architecture of gold because so far they have not find a way to defeat the power of nature. But the barrier to change bitcoin architecture is hash power and user acceptance (most users just blindly upgrade so their opinion can be manipulated through propaganda), it is not that hard, but it is becoming harder and harder overtime because you can't easily change the inertia of 7 year's history As a comparison, IPV6 is trying to replace IPV4, with better space and functions etc, but it took 18 years and still has not reached mainstream. As long as the old architecture works, any large change will be postponed |
|
|
|
Unlikely, bitcoin classic is looking to actually take away useful features. Like sidechains, segwit and RBF. All those projects with great potential, bitcoin classic is one fork with vested interest into making them fail.
Yes, there is such intention, the logic behind Classic is that it should stick to the original vision of Satoshi, to make it a p2p cash system instead of settlement system So the scaling road map will be totally different if you consider the difference in direction behind two factions. Many features that is useful for one direction will be harmful for the other direction Currently people still focus on major consensus rule and play it nicely, only the proposals benefiting both factions get applied. But since they are running towards different directions, sooner or later the diviation of opinion will become so large that no any major consensus can be reached over any change. In that case OP's proposal to make the rules set permanently will be a better way, since that will save all the energy spent on these fruitless debate and everyone can focus on building extra features based on a fixed bitcoin architecture. That's also the thinking behind bitcoin unlimited, make one time change and don't touch it any more, so that all the future debate is unecessary, just like no one arguing over why gold can not be engineered to be much lighter |
|
|
|
|
When your 1GB hard drive is full, you don't buy 1.1 GB hard drive, you buy 2GB or 3GB hard drive
When your 1Ghz CPU is too slow, you don't buy 1.1Ghz CPU, you buy 2-3Ghz CPU
(of course recent years CPU upgrade only gives you about 20% increase in performance so I have not upgraded for years, therefore the block size bump can be dangerous without sigop limitation )
When your 1MBps Network is too slow, you don't buy 1.1Mbps, you increase to 10Mbps
Any upgrade less than 2x is a maintenance release
|
|
|
|
|
I think there should be a god, it's all about creation, everyone that creating things, he become the god of his creation. So the god created our world, and he left
If the world is not man made, then why are all the physical rules so simple?
|
|
|
|
Hmm, if jumping up from 1MB to 2MB is controversial then perhaps we should try incrementing to 1.1MB or something just to get our feet wet. If we like it then we can try 1.2MB and so on. Waiting until the backlog is huge is not wise. The tension between full blocks = higher fees and barriers to adoption is certainly interesting. Personally I think we should favor adoption for now and defer cranking up fees until a little later.
I like that. Anyone have thoughts? It would not be bad; we'd get some experience with HF's. An increase of 100 KB every X amount of blocks until we reach 2 MB. Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly |
|
|
|
I implied that the intent of this contentious hard fork is to remove Core's commit access to the dominant software implementation.
Regarding core software commit access, I heard that there are 5 core devs who have it: Gavin, Jeff, Wladmir, Greg, Pieter So how the implementation of another fork outside of the core repo remove their commit access? In fact I think in a direction difference situation, if those 5 people could not reach agreement about what should be implemented in the current git repo. Then nothing can be done, since each of them have the permission to revoke any change committed by others. So if one of them want to have one commit which is not welcomed by the other people, fork is the only way to go. Otherwise any implementation will only stay at test net without any hope of entering the core repository This is the biggest contradiction: If you want a decentralized libertarian style community, you must have hard fork. If you want to avoid hard fork, then you must use a communism model |
|
|
|
Just heard that there is a consensus among chinese miners: They will not favor a change that moves transaction off-chain, since that will reduce their mining fee income
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Keep trying. Learn some chinese first before you tell a lie Provide some evidence so we can verify your claims, please. Learn some chinese and search for the truth there, language is the same technology barrier that core devs setup to confuse outsiders from making proper decision |
|
|
|
I guess the minority chain will be end very quick, if they dare to setup an exchange, they will face a sell off of pre-fork coins counted in millions of bitcoin, the price of that coin will be crash to 0 in a couple of minutes. In fact I guess no exchange dare to setup an exchange for a minority chain coin. The incentive to mine the minority chain will almost be 0
Why would you assume that? The most important thing to consider here is that miners are working off incomplete information. They don't really know how many nodes are running what implementation as it's very easy to run fake nodes. And it's nodes -- not hashing power -- that determine the validity of a blockchain. It's a more diverse and interesting question than most realize. Miners are pretty centralized. I think this is why Gavin is targeting them: it's much easier to trick a small number of highly centralized mining pools than it is to trick thousands of node operators. And if the 2MB implementation is capable of triggering the rule change based on hashing power (at 75% or whatever bullshit "democratic" threshold Gavin & Co. come up with -- 51%, etc.), then everyone else will crumble in submission, right? Well...the dozen nodes that I run won't. The definition of "majority" and "minority" chain can change in a heartbeat; that's just a matter of miners temporarily pointing their hashing power at one chain or the other. It doesn't matter what Coinbase and Bitstamp say now, or where Bitfury points its hashing power. What really matters are the nodes that determine block validity, and what proportion of them enforce the new fork's consensus rules. Because if a significant proportion of them enforce the old rules, we will have an irreparable chain fork. These irrelevant musings about how a majority of hashing power will render all other blockchains instantly dead are amusing but not very informative. If nodes do not approach consensus, miners will have to choose which fork to built on top of. But, which one? All of the Classic/XT rhetoric says that a temporary majority of hashing power will surely solve everything. But what the hell does that have to do with nodes? What proof do you have that Classic nodes will comprise a majority of nodes -- simply because Bitfury and a few mining pools upgraded ( if that happens at all)? Well, if a majority of nodes continue to enforce the 1MB rule, you may find quickly that the "majority chain" isn't a very meaningful phrase. It's all about validity. Miners will point their hashing power at the longest, valid chain. If it isn't clear which one is the longest valid chain (due to no clear consensus among nodes), we will have multiple blockchains and this will be irreconcilable. IMO, the most likely outcome of that is for mining farms to shut down en masse and for difficulty adjustment to drop significantly, as miners cannot risk expending resources to build on potentially invalid blockchains. The market would likely never recover -- probably rightfully so. For this to happen would mean that the only mechanism to enforce rules within the bitcoin protocol was broken, and all it took was the prodding of a loud minority. By the way, you know that pre-fork coins could also be sold off on majority-fork exchanges? Particularly because early adopters might be a little pissed off at the commit keys for bitcoin's dominant implementation being in the hands of a junior dev who wants to make the question of inflating the money supply a democratic one (jtoomim). How do you know who controls millions of pre-fork coins? You can be sure that I'll be dumping everything the second Toomim gets the keys to the kingdom, and I know several likeminded people. If you still think in the terms of keys to the kingdom, then you don't understand how bitcoin works. Everything is voluntary here, if the rule does not serve for the public good, people will leave, not like in a sovereign country, people have to stay and being taxed In fact, by design, when you command 51% hash power, you already can do anything to bitcoin network, so 51% or 75% really does not matter, this is the voting mechanism to solve the dispute in bitcoin network. And you can not really design a better way (a 2/3 rule will make a chain with 35% hash power intact forever thus the network forks into 2 chains permanently upon any small disagreement) And this is reasonable, since miners are the biggest investor and infrastructure provider of this ecosystem, they are the policy makers. When you are making ASIC mining farms with millions of dollars, you surely deserve to have that power. If you are not satisfied with the rule, you can leave, but if you want to change it, show your hash power |
|
|
|
Just heard that there is a consensus among chinese miners: They will not favor a change that moves transaction off-chain, since that will reduce their mining fee income
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." Keep trying. Learn some chinese first before you tell a lie |
|
|
|
However, when you have the major hash power supporting an upgrade, then the miners of the minority chain in a hard fork can not mine without suffering huge loss on the mining income (too slow mining), similar to the minority miners in a soft fork suffering huge loss when all the mined blocks are orphaned.So hash power will give up the minority chain quickly thus basically achieve the same result: After a few days, no one would be able to extend that old chain in any meaningful time. This has happened on that "50 bitcoin forever" fork during the first reward halving
This, of course, assumes that nodes reconcile and agree upon a single, valid ledger. Even if a majority of hashing power supports Hard Fork A and a minority supports the Original Fork, the relative hashing power of the minority increases by the amount of hashing power that is mining Hard Fork A, since they are building on separate blockchains. For example: Pre-fork: Minority = 30% hashing power Majority = 70% hashing power Post-fork: 30% minority = 3.333x relative hashing power (Original Fork) 70% majority = 1.429x relative hashing power (Hard Fork A) In a hard fork situation where there is a significant disparity between the proportion of nodes enforcing different rule sets, it becomes a game of speculation for miners to choose to increase their relative hashing power and by a factor of how much? And the only way to choose is to judge -- based on node proportion -- which blockchain is likely to store value against their mining expenditure? It's gonna be fun to watch -- I'll tell ya that.  I guess the minority chain will be end very quick, if they dare to setup an exchange, they will face a sell off of pre-fork coins counted in millions of bitcoin, the price of that coin will be crash to 0 in a couple of minutes. In fact I guess no exchange dare to setup an exchange for a minority chain coin. The incentive to mine the minority chain will almost be 0 |
|
|
|
i think only some a few people from whole bitcoin users know sufficiently about the issue of block size and willing to study and decide upon it. Others, some new, some who dont care since they are doing the tx like usual, arent bothered. That is the reason for this right.. i mean the huge difference.
or maybe they just dont want to and keep pulling the rubber till it breaks
Corrected that for you But those a few is enough to decide everything. Someone said, like FOMC meeting, basically 12 people in bitcoin ecosystem decide where it goes, sadly but true, at least for now |
|
|
|
|
Just heard that there is a consensus among chinese miners: They will not favor a change that moves transaction off-chain, since that will reduce their mining fee income
This is reasonable, since miners provide the value and security of the network, so they deserve to be rewarded for each transaction pass through the network. Any off-chain solution reduce miner's fee income and siphon value out of the service they provided
|
|
|
|
|
I made a more complete list of two types of fork scenario:
Hard fork is a loosening of the rules
If minority of hash power upgraded to new version, then new blocks will be orphaned
If majority of hash power upgraded to new version, then there will be two incompatible chains (like march 2013 fork)
Soft fork is a tightening of the rules
If minority of hash power upgraded to new version, then there will be two incompatible chains (like July 04 fork)
If majoriy of hash power upgraded to new version, then old blocks will be orphaned
So both upgrade will possibly fork into two incompatible chains depends on situation. But if you always make the upgrade when majority of hash power is supporting the upgrade, then soft fork can make sure there will not be two incompatible chains, while hard fork will create two incompatible chains at first
However, when you have the major hash power supporting an upgrade, then the miners of the minority chain in a hard fork can not mine without suffering huge loss on the mining income (too slow mining), similar to the minority miners in a soft fork suffering huge loss when all the mined blocks are orphaned. So hash power will give up the minority chain quickly thus basically achieve the same result: After a few days, no one would be able to extend that old chain in any meaningful time. This has happened on that "50 bitcoin forever" fork during the first reward halving
|
|
|
|
|
At this stage, it will never fail, because the hash power is already here, that's the infrastructure of bitcoin's value base. As long as those farms are intact, they just need to run a most widely used software and everything will be fine. Or, they can even run a minority version software but the risk of the coins on that chain being shorted to death is very high
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
