it seems the avg Bitcoiner can't bear to hear or even discuss "possible" messy scenarios as Mike is quite rightfully willing to do.
It's pretty clear that Mike doesn't understand what an economic majority means. If you have the economic majority, you don't need to enforce a "technical mess" to fix anything. I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say, unless they actually want to turn Bitcoin into something completely unrecognizable. I'm not completely opposed to bigger blocks, but I am completely opposed to BitcoinXT and anything Hearn. I am not in support of such an action where miners in china are essentially shunned by the "economic majority". I tend to think the miners (all of them around the world) make up a big part of the economic majority as they help facilitate the transactions. So if Hearn is thinking along the lines of doing that some day (I would not support it). The only way I support XT is through actual consensus, not forced consensus. |
|
|
|
Where is the proof that WoodCollector is banned?
Take a look at his profile page. His signature mentions that the WoodCollector account was banned here. Where is the proof that these are his alts?
It's fairly obvious that he was in control of a few alts, as those were really the only people standing up for him, plus IIRC BadBear tagged at least one of them as a WoodCollector alt. Has there ever been an instance of a bitcointalk admin violating the privacy of their users?
It was fairly obvious that those users were alts of WoodCollector. Users figured that out pretty quickly, plus the staff here have tools to find alt accounts of users as well. Don't really think that making his alt accounts public was violating their privacy, when so many people knew already. So banned accounts can still log in and update their signature? Can we get confirmation on that forum behavior from an admin? Short of evidence from BG4 or an admin, we are still left believing the word of WoodCollector, don't you see a problem with that? When you are banned from this forum you are still allowed to update your signature. The funny thing about WoodCollector is he pretty much responded how Goat (i.e. Chaang Noi) would if they were banned. lol If you look at the trust page of each of the users listed in that wooden piece you will likely see BadBear (an admin) claim "A likely Alt of WoodCollector". I presume they have their own methodology on how to determine if someone is using multiple accounts even behind tor. The writing styles of those accounts are very similar as well. Take a look at their posts and you will see they continuously do not captitalize "i" and mistakenly use "your" in place of "you're". |
|
|
|
|
@LaudaM define "consensus" in your opinion
is it based on nodes?
hash power?
majority of economical backers (businesses and exchanges)?
all 3 above?
|
|
|
|
Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED.
I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this?
Please provide this.
Thanks
BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view.
I was talking solely about Bitcointalk, not reddit. I can't find the proper source as they video was mentioned back a few months in some of the discussions. However, I found something similar. Here it is. Ignore the longest chain.  censorship is censorship at least consider that it is being done on reddit. thanks for the link...watching it now.  ... interesting. Did not know that video was made. Will take it and run with it. Thanks |
|
|
|
-snip-
But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for.
You forgot a important part in your post. Hearn does not care about consensus and would proceed with XT with lower percentage, thus causing a split (i.e. not a proper hard fork as theymos suggested). Also you forgot to mention the implementation of a 'dictator' that could overrule consensus and if people don't agree they could start a new fork as Hearn suggested. Moving threads to the appropriate section =/= censoring. Please reference your claims with URLs. BOLDED. I have seen no such statements made by Hearn. Where exactly did he say this? Please provide this. Thanks BTW deleting Reddit posts is censorship in my view. |
|
|
|
|
bigger is better?
Not sure how bigger applies to this miner and how it is better.
It's like saying less space is better.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin XT forwards both double spend attack transactions. If bitcoin-core receives a transaction and another one that conflicts with this transaction, core will ignore the second one and not forward it. Now, Bitcoin XT will forward both such transactions.. ergo both double spend attack transactions.
You may want to send a conflicting transaction which wouldn't be really double spend. In the case you might want to increase the fee for a transaction that is not getting confirmed.
I wonder whether most nodes could cope with 20 MB blocks. Whereas computing space storage and speed might go up exponentially, home bandwidth rates have faced stagnation and bandwidth caps. Perhaps the majority of users will use light clients anyway. We lack the hard data to know what would happen, which makes this XT testnet a good thing. We only know the parameters in bitcoin-core worked out even in face of a transaction flood attack. If you have more demanding bandwidth, you may get fewer nodes, we cannot say for certain how many unfortunately.
There is another side of matters that are not technical, yet I think they are even more important in the XT vs. core debate. If Gavin gets his way here against the majority of developers and if I were king, I would definitely feel I could coerce him into doing things that would be good for the bankers that I serve but bad for bitcoin. Now his life would become very difficult for him at this point. It sets a very dangerous precedent.
sdp
Having the network (community) ultimately decide if consensus of a hard fork is reached is dangerous? really? If the majority chooses to use XT (or whatever hard fork version) then how is that bad? If consensus is reached then that means the majority of nodes in the original bitcoin network agree to the changes. If they don't XT will just die. What's the problem? No need to censor posts on discussion of a possible fork (not that it will happen). |
|
|
|
here was an interesting quote that sums up theymos' recent actions:
"Bitcoin XT is a hard fork of bitcoin, which means that it is a candidate for actual bitcoin, and thus equally deserving of discussion. The only reason to censor information about it is to assert your own opinion on the matter."
It is not. Anything without proper consensus, i.e. that is threatening to split up the network is not a proper hard fork and should never be considered as one. Hearn is just a person who likes the idea of dictatorship. Instead of actually convincing people the proper way, they start an attack on theymos for doing literally not wrong. This is exactly what altcoins have been doing. They fork from Bitcoin without consensus and thus create a separate network/currency.
Supporting bigger blocks is not the same as supporting XT. Why not just allow discussion of a hard fork (which may or may not happen) continue? It is bitcoin with support for larger blocks if CONSENSUS of the network is achieved. How is it not a candidate for actual bitcoin discussion when the code is supportive of the current bitcoin network going forward? If people choose not to use it then fine. But censoring discussion about a fork (which the network will either accept or reject) is uncalled for. It isn't like we are talking about a complete restart of the network like Litecoin or whatever. CORRECTION: Supporting XT is ONE way of supporting bigger blocks. Don't get it twisted. |
|
|
|
Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?  No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed. How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions? I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems. But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale). In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can? I'm not claiming this, just asking the question. Well is good the same as perfect? Certainly not I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).
I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is. Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break. Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form. Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc. It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question). We already have a fee market. But it isn't one that is very competitive yet. Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels. |
|
|
|
|
What makes this entire experience exciting is that we are in uncharted waters going through this controversy.
Exciting times ahead.
|
|
|
|
Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed. How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions? I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems. But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale). In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can? I'm not claiming this, just asking the question. Well is good the same as perfect? Certainly not I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).
I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is. Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break. Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form. Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc. |
|
|
|
Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed. How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions? I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems. But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale). In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can? I'm not claiming this, just asking the question. Well is good the same as perfect? I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature). |
|
|
|
Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed. How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions? Even though there is a lot of drama and shit flinging fits around here, I still believe bitcoin (by its community of supporters) will find a solution to the cliff we are going to go over at some point. Having intermediaries trying to profit by keeping the bitcoin block size at 1MB is questionable to me. |
|
|
|
…
At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.
I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way. What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit. Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ." What would happen? Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB. This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes. I'd expect many people to do the same thing. Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size. We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks. Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows. TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit. that's just a re-write of what i've been advocating; lift the limit entirely. but yeah, your idea is great b/c it would give full node operators a sense of being in charge via a pull down menu. i like it. don't forget that mining pools are just huge hashing overlays of full nodes which they operate and could use to do the same type of voting. Yes, you have been essentially advocating the same thing. We could take this idea further: in addition to the drop-down menu where node operators and miners select the max block size they'll accept, we could add two new features to improve communication of their decisions: 1. The max block size selected by a node would be written into the header of any blocks the node mines. 2. The P2P protocol would be extended so that nodes could poll other nodes to find out their block size limit. This would be a highly decentralized way of coming to consensus in a very flexible and dynamic manner. It would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer, as sickpig suggested: you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer.
The network would dynamically determine the max block size as the network evolves by expressing the size of the blocks they will accept with the drop-down menu on their client. So…is this a good idea? If there are no obvious "gotchas" then perhaps we should write up a BIP. So would this essentially be a voting mechanism on current block size (of course it can change dynamically on the next block)? What % would determine that a block size has "consensus"? Interesting idea... Just wanted to say that I am open to the idea of having dynamically allocated block sizes as long as the overall network accepts it. I don't think this is a case of "dont fix something that aint broke" like some opponents of changing the max block size from 1 MB like to say, but rather a "let's find solutions to very probable problems coming down the road in bitcoin's future before as opposed to after" Pro-active as opposed to reactive. |
|
|
|
Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.
So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?
Why would that logically make sense. Does spam no longer exist? Do you expect it to eventually not exist? Peter R's idea of a per-node block size is intriguing. I'm still pondering it. No. The issue now is that bitcoin will eventually outgrow its 1MB max block size. The economy/infrastructure of bitcoin is such that it can (in my view) set its own block sizes on its own (or with some moving averages of max and min block sizes) to be put into play in a dynamic fashion as opposed to hard coding a limit in. Why hard code the limit when it can self-regulate based on current amount of transactions (averages over X time) and set a range that adjusts to periods that have more/less transactions. Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? |
|
|
|
Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like. it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination. have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations? everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners. the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together. but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference. My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts. As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT. The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you. Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism." They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action. yep, didn't think you'd be able to see the difference. one being outright censorship that attempts to suppress discussion of the most important debate in the community today about Bitcoins future direction, ie the XT fork, and the other a nobody cares spammy personal slander attack that only started when i began speaking out in favor of bigger blocks. not to mention by a coward who hides behind an anonymous identity. Has iCEBRAKER not revealed his true identity yet? ROFL! |
|
|
|
As sickpig suggested, it would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer.
i never did quite get this part. can you explain? Sure. Why do we have a consensus layer in the first place? It is a way for us to agree on what transactions are valid and what transactions are invalid. For example, we all agree that Alice shouldn't be able to move Bob's coins without a valid signature, and that Bob shouldn't be able to create coins out of thin air. The consensus layer is about obvious stuff like that. In order for Bitcoin to function as sound money, we need to agree on "black-or-white" rules like this that define which transactions are valid and which are invalid. Notice that the paragraph above discusses valid and invalid transactions. No where did I say anything about blocks. That's because we only really care about transactions in the first place! In fact, how can a block be invalid just because it includes one too many valid transactions? Satoshi added the 1 MB limit as an anti-spam measure to deal with certain limitations of Bitcoin's transport layer--not as a new rule for what constitutes a valid transaction. We should thus think of every block that is exclusively composed of valid transactions as itself valid. The size of the block alone should not make it invalid. Instead, if a block is too big, think of it as likely to be orphaned (a "gray" rule) rather than as invalid (a black-or-white rule). Perhaps above a certain block size, we're even 100% sure that a block will be orphaned; still we should view it as a valid block! It will be orphaned because the transport layer was insufficient to transport it across the network--not because there was anything invalid about it. This ^ Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure. So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed? It seems like most people who support not changing the 1 MB limit are forgetting this very important fact. Drama is only going to get worse within the community as long as there is discord between opinions on such a simple topic as "max block size cap". Bitcoin (and its community) does not cease to amaze me how much drama ensues as Gavin has stated in the past. If the drama means a lower BITCOIN price then great I can back the truck up and buy more. |
|
|
|
|
what does the bitlicense actually offer bit coin accepting businesses that fit the bitlicense decsription?
Absolutely nothing but a price tag.
It's called a bribe. Not a license.
Legalized bribery is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Smoothie has already switched over, so XT miners will always be able to trade their XTcoins for silver and Hawaiian real estate, no problem.  LOL just because I switched doesn't mean I will accept payment on a fork. The outcome remains to be seen once the blockchain forks. Any merchant accepting payment on a fork before consensus has been made is retarded. I support bigger blocks that's the only reason I switched.
If the network decides against larger blocks I will then switch back to core.Nah not gonna happen until you buy Luke a high end computer, a new place that comes with high speed connection. Not satisfying one of the dev? well tough luck.... we dont have 100% agreement..... XT is "not gonna happen" because nobody (not even our foolish pal smoothie) is willing to stick their neck out by being the first to defect from Core's economic majority. How am I foolish? Just because I choose to support bigger blocks does not make me foolish. You are now starting to sound like you have to resort to ad hominem. Very mature. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
