I think traincarswreck is actually saying that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone continues development of Bitcoin, because it is currently fixed in its final form.

I'm not sure I agree with that, and I quite disagree with his reasoning for this (which I believe to be "because Nash foretold an 'other alternative, and dagnabbit, Bitcoin is obviously that thing"). But it is something that may actually be true.

We'll have to see how the future plays out.

Meantime, I continue to advocate BU.

That concern seems kind of silly. An ETF will likely batch all buys and sells of bitcoin needed to back ETF shares into a daily or hourly transaction. Their impact to the transaction rate would therefore be negligible.

It is not that non-mining nodes have zero importance. Indeed, they are important in that they signal the preferences of their users. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power.

I said The SegWit Omnibus Changeset destroys fungibility. I did not say it was an issue. You initially denied the fact that it does ... now you are backtracking to 'not an issue'. Perhaps you should actually think about your claims before you make them.


IOW, you are happy to wallow in your ignorance. ::sigh:: Oh well - it certainly would not be a first.


I don't need to contact him. You are the one that appealed to his supposed authority. Which, if accurately relayed by you in both directions (which may or may not have been the case) displays an incomplete analysis if the scenario.

I think you are on the verge of understanding that issue.


OK... sure. I'm quite certain you are unable to poke a hole in my scenario there. Why don't you try? Or even ... why don't you ping Harding with what I posted, and have him see if he can poke holes in it?

Do you understand that 'fungibility' is the property that no units of a thing have differing characteristics from other units?


Way to make a technical rebuttal, Lauda. You're certainly on your game tonight.

Thank you. I have been trying to make this point for ages, always falling on deaf ears. It is nice to know that at least someone else gets it.

'Voting' is pointless. The only 'votes' that matter are tendered by people choosing which code they are running.

I'm 'voting' BU.

Harding's concern would be founded. But only to the point that all miners would suddenly start performing only zero-transaction block mining. Which of course is ludicrous.

What is not said, is that miners who perform zero-transaction mining do so only until they are able to validate the block that they are mining atop. Once they have validated that block, they modify the block that they are mining to include a load of transactions. They cannot include the load of transactions before validation, because until validated, they have no idea which transactions they need to exclude from the block they are mining. For if they mine a block that includes a transaction that was mined in a previous block, their block would be orphaned for invalidity.

So what would happen with parallel validation under such a scenario?

Miner A is mining at height N. As he is doing so, miner B solves a block that contains a aberrant quadratic-hash-time transaction (let us call this 'ADoS block' (attempted denial of service)) at height N, and propagates it to the network.
Miner A, who implements parallel validation and zero-transaction mining stops mining his height A block. He spawns a thread to start validating the ADoS block at height N. He starts mining a zero-transaction block at height N+1 atop ADoS.
Miner C solves a normal validation time block C at height N and propagates it to the network.
When Miner A receives block C, he spawns another thread to validate block C. He is still mining the zero-transaction block atop ADoS.
A short time thereafter, Miner A finishes validation of block C. ADoS is still not validated. So Miner A builds a new block at height N+1 atop block C, full of transactions, and switches to mining that.
From the perspective of Miner A, he has orphaned Miner B's ADoS block.
Miner A may or may not win round N+1. But statistically, he has a much greater chance to win round N+1 than any other miner that does not perform parallel validation. Indeed, until the ADoS block is fully validated, it is at risk of being orphaned.
The net result is that miners have a natural incentive to operate in this manner, as it assures them a statistical advantage in the case of ADoS blocks. So if Miner A does not win round N+1, another miner that implements parallel validation assuredly will. End result: ADoS is orphaned.

End result: Harding's concern is irrelevant. The quadratic hash time problem solves itself. No change to the protocol needed.

Well, there is yet another effect which seems rarely discussed. Under The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, there are essentially two classes of bitcoins. Those that have been created by legacy, and those which have been created by SegWit. This is by definition a destruction of fungibility.

How important fungibility is to you is something only you can decide.

Note that this requires believing that making nodes that currently operate in a trustless manner suddenly dependent upon others for security fits the definition of 'backwards compatible'. I think that definition of 'backwards compatible' is ludicrous. YMMV.

The 'DoS' doesn't even require a protocol change to nullify. Indeed, there is a natural incentive already in the protocol that ensures it will never become a systemic problem. If large-time-to-verify-blocks ever became A Thing, miners will employ parallel validation. This will ensure that such large-time-to-verify-blocks will be orphaned by faster-to-verify-blocks.

Miners who gravitate to parallel validation will earn more income, and miners who do not employ parallel validation will become bankrupted over time. As will miners who create such DoS blocks.

This is already part of the protocol. No change is needed.

You're looking ridiculous again, franky1. Y'all might wanna reel you-self back in.

Why - did you tell her you liquidated your position at twelve bucks and change?

Exactly. There is no problem which requires solving. This merely eliminates the DoS potential that quadratic hash time exploits might incur, if there was not this obvious workaround already inherent in the protocol.

Lesser implementations that have no embedded nullification of this exploit may wish to take note.

But that is exactly what it is. Everyone should be aware of this fact. Broadcasting it will only turn away those not ready to take responsibility for their actions. Leading to less pain all around.

-----

What's up with the thread? Did some mod comb through it, splitting the meta discussion from discussion of OP's plight? Can't say I remember ever noting that happening before on this forum.

One cannot park their wealth in anything without performing a transaction. And it is not really wealth, unless it can be converted back to products and services - which requires another transaction. Capping tps also caps the rate at which people can get in and out of this form of wealth (though that's a tautology). Yes, with capped tps there is a slider: a lot of people can get in and out once on one end, and very few people can get in & out at will at the other. But if unbounded participants can get in and out at will, then it starts becoming a money. The more liquid a store of wealth be, the more useful it is to those who control it. More utility: more value. More value: higher price. Higher price: better store of wealth. It's a virtuous circle.
 

And BurtW has just told you that it had been an all-but-universal belief among Bitcoiners that scaling solutions would be forthcoming in some form or another. You seemed to accept this proposition. I certainly believe that to be true.

So if you are suddenly advancing the new proposition that Bitcoin should be artificially limited, it is you that is introducing uncertainty.


If there is economic literature that says not increasing Bitcoin's tps will increase its value, kindly point me to it. Or if there is economic literature that says increasing Bitcoin's tps will not increase its value, kindly point me to that.

Lacking a mutually accepted reference, uncovering the truth will require either: reasoning it out; or running the experiment.

Reason tells me that more people getting more utility out of something would tend to increase its value (for any reasonable definition of value). So tear down that assertion.

Bitcoin certainly provides unique utility as an appreciating asset. It has given me a place to park the fruit of my labor that has appreciated in purchasing power far and above any other option. And processing more transactions per unit time allows a larger proportion of humanity to take advantage of this fact. This itself is a "significant and especially unique solution that it provides". Whether or not that is something you desire is irrelevant.

Bullshit. It serves the purpose of allowing more transactions to occur on the blockchain per unit time. Whether or not that is something you desire is irrelevant.

You might wanna check your sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9pQ1pIbiU