You're still business partners with someone who's so arrogant that he thinks miners should just directly control the protocol! Unless you've quit that self-contradictory relationship....

You implicitly support the things you explicitly defy. Bit of a mixed message, ck

I'm Anti-government, there's a huge amount right with it, but Roger is a strange kind of anarchist.


Roger has been promoting all the blocksize hard fork Bitcoin coups, seemingly without realising that he's promoting the number 1 thing government and/or central banks would love: an idea to increase transaction rate that screws Bitcoin up in a way that's fairly subtle to understand. If there's one thing the soft-fascist establishment loves, it's cleverly subtle ways of tricking the public into doing something that's against the public's interests, and in the interests of the establishment.

There's nothing wrong with anarchism, unless you believe all that nonsense you see on the TV where anarchists are just angry, hateful people that secretly want to be in power themselves. It's the best check on power there could be; taking away the power of the most powerful.

Concurred.


Making user activation part of the protocol simply invites a different brigading attack instead, having a mechanism to do that invites that strategy.

If user directed action is needed, it's safer in the long-term realised as ad-hoc one-offs, and not turning that concept into a part of the system.

Ultimately, mining needs a decentralising shot in the arm. I doubt you're in favour of that ck, but hey

Trust logic, Andreas makes good logical arguments, but that's not definitive, he might get something horribly wrong in the future. It would be really dangerous if everyone blindly followed Andreas if or when he does suggest something that doesn't really make sense.

Trusting people based on past performance can be dangerous. Everyone becoming as educated as possible about the issues relevant to Bitcoin is the real answer.

Well, it will change the total amount of transactions possible, spamming isn't outcompeting genuine economic interests of those who can afford higher fees than spammers. Or at least not yet.

But lets not forget that another curcial difference that increasing the blocksize will make is it will increase the IBD (initial blockchain download) and the data costs of running a full node. Neither are good.

I'd like to get to a point in the future, maybe 2020 ish or later, where people can legitimately say "I only need a 700GB file? But that downloads in 5 minutes! And just 1 hour to check all the transactions!? My phone can do that!!!". In those circumstances (which would need massive increases in computer processors and internet infrastructure), going to, say, 8MB blocks wouldn't be a risk. But it takes the average computer DAYS to do that now, it's a non-starter until days turns into hours.


And above all, I'm more concerned about those who want Bitcoin to fail, not miners gaming inflated fee profits. But both are legitimate concerns to be fair.

If that was true, you would be suggesting improvements to layer 1, not adding simplistic attack vectors that beget more simplistic attack vectors.

Everyone knows how blocksize increases will play out:

• increase blocksize
• new blocksize gets spammed
• tx fees are then the same as they were before
• increase blocksize
• new blocksize gets spammed
• tx fees are then the same as they were before

If you want to argue "let's have an upper limit then!"...

Then why mess around, just set an upper limit, we'll end up at that limit anyway




People buying altcoins is not a substitute for Bitcoin transactions, none are anywhere close to being as well engineered and proven as Bitcoin itself. And we all know that using altcoins to send Bitcoin is the dumbest idea ever: if you have to send a BTC transaction to an altcoin exchange anyway, you may as well just cut the crap and send your BTC transactions to where you want it to go. Fail, Roger.


When will you listen and learn? Scaling does not mean increasing the data burden on the network 1:1. That's not scaling.

Finding ways to make the separate transactions themselves use less space or network resources is what scaling actually means. Why are you pushing so hard for the complete opposite?

Can you not read? Why the fuck should I waste my time and that of others repeating this in the same thread


You're forgetting something important: what if a miner wants Bitcoin to become screwed up and unusable, because the miner has incentives to drive Bitcoin into the ground? You're not looking at it broadly enough, and it's painful as it would be far better if everyone could try to imagine the broader game theory possibilities from as many angles as possible. I can't possibly think of them all myself, and most of the people in this thread have demonstrated they can be thoughtful and imaginative in the past. Help!

It's because I actually am using reason to form my observations. I have no need to make references or contrasts to/with people's internet pseudonym's in order to state my case, reason does the job better.


And you're still wrong about blocksize increases because of reason, not because my name's Carlton and your name's d5000.

---

Blocksize changes are not a way change the scale of transaction rate, blocksize changes alter the resources the Bitcoin network needs to run, which defies the definition of scaling. All blocksize increases come with a series of risks attached, 4MB Segwit included.


On-chain should be expanded, but using actual scaling improvements, like improving the way transactions are encoded.

Spam attack is more serious under this proposal. It can be used to push the blocksize up according to malign intent, not natural demand.


Game theory fail, it's dead in the water my friend.

So transaction flooding is the attack then. Game theory fail.


If we'd been doing this for the last 2 years, the spam attackers would be pushing the size up instead.


Blocksize is and always has been a constant, changing that is foolish. If there is no upper overall limit, it's dangerous that it will be gamed until the Bitcoin blockchain becomes too big to download to keep it's distribution decentralised.

If there is an upper limit, you may as well make that limit the blocksize anyway, as it will still be gamed with spam flooding until it reaches that upper absolute limit.


Game. Theory. Fail.

Easily gamed with a Sybil attack (attacker floods the Bitcoin network with nodes voting for whatever they want to force)

And the miners would conduct the attack, then approve the blocksize they chose. No different to any of the other flawed dynamic/adaptive systems, just with a different name to describe the technique.

No. Thanks.

No, it's self-evident that it wasn't accepted or instated. Otherwise Bitcoin would be using it already.

There is some very, very significant code written by Luke-jr in Bitcoin, he's helped a great deal. Despite his somewhat eccentric stance on some issues, he is definitely an important part of Bitcoin's story.

You cannot include Vitalik Buterin and exclude Luke-jr, I can't take that even remotely seriously. Vitalik has never coded for Bitcoin, Luke's done alot.

This is the most pertinent part.


Lightning transactions are as the text decribes, in essence zero-confirmation Bitcoin transactions that are not broadcast publicly like on-chain transactions are.


But this does not make them as insecure as zero-conf on-chain transactions, as they use a combination of time-locked funds and mutually exchanged revocation secrets to reinstate the security that zero-conf on-chain transactions lack.

So, it's fair to say that Lightning is less secure than on-chain, but more secure than zero-conf on-chain. But Lightning will be better suited to IRL purchases anyway, the infamous cup of coffee use-case. Cafes don't want to screw their customers over for the most part, they have to live with the consequences of that, so using Lightning in situations where you trust who you're buying from is the most suitable use case (and also matches the high transaction volume, and instant fund clearance Lightning achieves with the high transaction, instant fund clearance requirements of IRL businesses)

It's possible too that an improvement in the design of Lightning, or an alternative off-chain network design might be able to give us 100% trustless funds clearance like on-chain transactions do, but we'll have to wait to see how that pans out.

Kicking out miners who don't understand their role just creates a gap in the market where the uncooperative miners used to be.


New miners would be more than happy to take on the risk of securing Bitcoin if people like you carry on like this. Can you wave like The Queen, kano? Can you say "bye-bye"?

No, this has already been rejected, for the exact same reason as BU, in fact: it gives too much power to the miners, who are already abusing their power.

Bear in mind OP, that only Aussies and Brits understand their own specific use of the "c" word.


British and Australian people do not refer to females with the "c" word as a matter of course, it's a cultural norm in Britain and Australia. Females and males both use the "c" word to describe men only, this is not even a matter of discussion amongst the Brits and the Aussies, everyone knows this rule without being told.


In the US and other English speaking countries, people do not have the same (more) benign usage of the "c" word, they actually use it as an insult to women, not as an insult to men (and even a term of endearment) like the Brits and the Aussies.


So, careful what you say Brits and Aussies, people might completely misunderstand the cultural differences that led you to using the "c" word, and rightfully assume you are being more insulting than you actually intend to be.

Rest of the world: learn a little more of the cultural diversity within the English language, especially native English speakers (who really should know better in this day and age)

+1

Mike Caldwell not only made a technical contribution with BIP38, he was also responsible for the iconic Casascius physical Bitcoins, which will be what most people imagine when they think of Bitcoin as a photograph of a huge pile of Casascius coins was a very common image used for news articles.

Mike was probably one of the earliest victims of government caprice and aggression (he was told that describing his coins as "coins" was illegal IIRC )

Oh, you've solved the problems of malleability and quadratic sighash scaling a different way? What is your proposal?

You're guaranteed 6.85 BTC on both chains at the current £ exchange rate. £6000 is not guaranteed.



I hope you understand Lightning better now, mandy