So-called 'small block supporters'* have an annoying habit of switching to some other argument when asked to provide evidence supporting their previous argument.

* The SegWit Omnibus Changeset allows blocks as large as 4MB.

And their claims are often half-truths that lead to agreement from the great unwashed, despite irrelevancy.

Case in point: of course upstream bandwidth is important. I don't think anyone disputes this. But what evidence suggests that upstream bandwidth is either a constraint today, or the upstream bandwidth will become a constraint tomorrow?

In an era where bandwidth providers are aggressively building out to accommodate full-rate 4K video bandwidth to every home, bitcoin node traffic -- even if it were to be to every home -- is negligible.

Well, that is an interesting hypothesis that seems perfectly plausible.

Either way, the lack of direct monetary renumeration for node operation has not so far proven to be a fatal flaw within Bitcoin.

Well, that's the lowest estimate of internet bandwidth growth I've seen.

Meanwhile, the bandwidth available to The Bitcoin Network has increased by ~70% in the last year: http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/

Another data point would be Nielsen's Law: "Users' bandwidth grows by 50% per year (10% less than Moore's Law for computer speed). The new law fits data from 1983 to 2016." https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

Or this academic paper, which looks at separate segments, and notes that growth has fallen from a 20th century 'mere doubling of rate per year' to 20%-30% in industrialized countries, and 65% cellular bandwidth growth worldwide. http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/webtraffic.pdf

Or NetworkWorld, which measures a 32% CAGR in bandwidth growth, and expects this trend to continue: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2187538/tech-primers/exponential-bandwidth-growth-and-cost-declines.html

BU is Bitcoin Unlimited. It is a fork of the Satoshi client that makes a fix to permanently optimize the maximum block size limit.

https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/

While that would be a good idea, that is unfortunately the way Bitcoin currently operates. Working now, and ofr the foreseeable future. There seems to be no fatal flaw in this.


Not exactly. If you don't run a node, you are incapable of making trustless transactions on the blockchain. It is not altruism that causes one to run a node, it is enlightened self-interest.
 

Expensive servers? Don't be ridiculous. I run a full node on a computer I bought years ago for under 0.3 BTC ($300). While using that computer for other tasks as well. Sure, at some point in the future I may need to upgrade. But 0.3 BTC is not an inordinate amount to expect someone to spend to be a first-class member of the network.

And in that entire tirade, your only argument is 'someone else called it a problem'.

Fine. I don't need to convince you. Market advantage for me.

Incidentally, I already laid out the rationale in our exchange, for anyone willing to actually read what I wrote.

I'm guessing the fact that it does not bring about "no waiting and no congestion" might have something to do with it.

Your initial tirade was insufficiently specific to know which specific pull req that you referred to as 'unbelievably klugy'. After you actually bothered to identify that to which you were referring, it was evident I was already aware of it. Said identification, of course, being exactly why I pointed out that the thing of which I was unaware was what thing you had not at that point identified. Accordingly, until you identified it, I was not aware of what specific thing you were referring to. This is absolutely elementary. English much?


I don't need to convince Gavin of doodly-squat. He's an uninvolved third party in this discussion. So far, this discussion is you and me, and you have not as of yet bothered to identify any shortcoming to my  observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem. After three rounds, I am about to conclude you are unable to.

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?.

Nonsense. I am pointing out that incentives are already aligned to make this a non-problem.


Your problem seems to be an inability to reason from first principles.


I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.


Go fuck yourself. I'm not going anywhere.

And I am perfectly conversant with "the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects." At least, you have provided nothing that rebuts my observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem.

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?


Nothing in that invalidates my claim that mining incentives are aligned to render this a non-problem. Sure, somebody "can create a very expensive-to-validate block to try to gum up the network." But they can expect to find their solved block orphaned by another, quicker-to-validate solved block that extends the chain while laggards are still wasting time spinning cycles on trying to validate the aberrant block.


Umm, are you not a native english speaker? Do you not know what a 'belt and suspenders' fix is?


Well, no. Your Gavin quote does not even address my assertion. But nice try, junior.


Agan - it is not prediction, it is reasoning.

Hear that world!? I'm the MAN!




oops - not quiet - Ill just go back to my corner now....

Unhhh.... weeelll...... ooohh kaaaaay than.

I guess I'll just stand quietly in that corner over there.

As much as I would like to believe your claim, I find it extremely unlikely that thousands are joining every day. Source?

The funny thing is it is a winning strategy, as long as you are hodling at the point the rocket takes off.

The miners are an essential part of the community. Your entire 'us vs. them' premise is flawed. Without miners, Bitcoin dies.

So in the case that multiple solution blocks to a block round are present, which one will be built atop? The valid block that validates promptly, the valid block that takes an inordinate amount of time to validate, or the invalid block that will never validate because it is counterfeit?

Spin? WTF? No spin here.

I could have used the word 'aspect' instead of 'issue'. Or 'attribute'. Or some other. Wouldn't have made much difference.


It is not a 'prediction', it is pointing out an essential element of the incentives already baked in to Bitcoin. I know you know that Bitcoin only works _at_all_ because the incentives are such that 'doing the right thing' is profitable. Right? Well, this is just one more instance of doing the right thing being profitable.

I'll admit that I don't know if any significant miners currently implement this policy. Then again, aberrant blocks -- in the sense that they take a huge time to validate -- are rare. Indeed, I am aware of only one ever being created. But if such blocks ever became A Thing, rational miners will implement the mode I describe above. Because orphaning such aberrant blocks by others guarantees increased profitability.

Sure, we might choke down several aberrant blocks in the meantime. But that won't bring the network down. It merely forestalls block completion time in the same manner that a variance outlier does. We've choked down at least one of these blocks before -- indeed one crafted intentionally to max out validation time -- to no ill effect.


Don't blame me for your being unable to game out this perfectly rational scenario. It is the only such scenario that makes sense in the case of such aberrant blocks.


Of course. A 51% attacker always gets to define the chain. What's your point?


Of course. These things are all probabilistic. But the incentives are aligned to render this (::ahem::!) attribute a non-problem.


Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

"Digital music will never be affordable for consumers - memory will always be too expensive to allow it."

Silly. Your comment gets circular-filed right next to Krugman's 'internet no more significant than the fax'.

Except that 'slim block submission' (I assume you mean Xthin?) absolutely does not lead to 'every single miner starting to mine empty unverified blocks'. The two are completely orthogonal.

Xthin and Expedited Relay are both benefits to he network as a whole. Optimistic Mining is a benefit to each miner that existing incentives ensure will be implemented by miners whether they run some BU derivation, some Core derivation, or any other.

Interestingly, Xthin reduces the percentage of block interval over which Optimistic Mining is beneficial. Thereby working exacly opposite to your claim.

So what are you complaining about, again? You've certainly not articulated anything probative.

haha! Jerry or Ken? Maybe Bear?

I dunno. If I had my tinfoil hat on, I might speculate 'fiat bux from AXA' - but I have no idea.

The funny thing is that the people that brought us (entirely predictable) state of affairs are the very ones who present themselves as the masters of not only sw implementation, but also of economics and of game theory.   I guess that's both funny(sick) and funny(haha).


Indeed. The only proper response is to implement, signal, and argue for your optimal solution.


If your only driving concern is the dollar price, then your position (seemingly 1MB4EVA) might be reasonable. Personally, I rather value the antifragility enabled by the next wave adoption (and the next, and the next, and ...). And we can't make any progress on that front when we are hard-limited to ~250,000 transactions per day.


I sympathize a little with your outrage. However, I don't believe that there is another way. Your options -- from the sidelines -- are few.

- Sell all your BTC and leave it all behind, thereby unnoticeably reducing the price (such would be a lever for large groups, but inconsequential for individuals)

- Buck up buttercup and fire up a node. Joining the network makes your voice heard. Any given node still has essentially zero real power, but at least you can signal your preferences.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that's about all your options.


Let us conveniently ignore the fact that a year ago, the preponderance of miners indicated that they would implement a simple maxblocksize increase to 8MB. Of course Core Knew Better, and gave them 'what they needed' (::ahem::!), not what they wanted.