The XT supporters make their true intentions clear: I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81press it!  Why? Because the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by the market is too dangerous? If you truly believe so why not advocate to have the limit removed already?? |
|
|
|
The XT supporters make their true intentions clear: I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81Yes, that also had me raise an eyebrow. |
|
|
|
The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality. What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking. The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact. More disgusting lies  Shame on you. |
|
|
|
Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.
I'm not posting only for your benefit. A lot of people haven't seen them. For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin: Won't you get off us you fucking psycho. The mad house is over there : https://bitco.in/forum/ |
|
|
|
Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!
What is this? A popularity contest  Currencies are a popularity contest. Bitcoin is not very popular until today compared to the US$. But the times, they are a changin. That will also be true for dev decentralization. You've got choice. Whether you like it or not. Yes, you can have the popular idiots |
|
|
|
Increasing the block size != support for XT. I (e.g.) have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.
Why does XT have to "take over"? Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations? See that's precisely how broken this argument is. XT being the only implementation currently supporting bigger blocks it would take near unanimous adoption by every full nodes to enable its "vision" What would happen then is you'd merely switch Core for XT in your little gifs. |
|
|
|
Go away. edit: thanks for the laugh "Inform yourself and decide for yourself using reason, here's my "informative" opinion" |
|
|
|
Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!
What is this? A popularity contest |
|
|
|
brg444,
Why would the market care yet? No one is complaining about high fees yet. No adoption is being hindered. Yet. The market is patient as long as it can be, and prefers the conservatism of sticking with Core until Core shows itself to be definitely unwilling to meet market demands. This may or may not happen, depending on what Core decides to do with the blocksize in the coming months. I'm guessing Core will increase the blocksize fairly soon, but if they don't. POW.
With the quote, I have no idea what it's getting at. Who are the "needers" and who are the "creators and owners" - needers, creators, and owners of what?
It's really very simple: investors can support whatever fork they like, and there will go the hashing power and eventually the development. Investors hold the keys to the castle. Always have, always will. It doesn't matter if they don't create or own anything. All that matters is they can move the price of CoreBTC or XTBTC when the time comes.
Maybe you need to read it again: " The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things." If you agree that "the investors" decide then you should understand that the individuals who make the majority of "the investors" group largely could not care less about an marginal increase in fees by the simple fact that they are largely "Bitcoin rich". This very clear fact also suggest that they do not particularly care whether adoption by those who cannot afford larger fees is hindered. The needers are those who need small fees and MOAR transactions. The owners are "the investors". As such you may need to revise your expectations of what "the investors" pain points are and how long they can remain patient. |
|
|
|
I define an anti-spam measure as a limit above the free-market equilibrium and a political measure as a limit below the free-market equilibrium. According to those definitions, we're probably transitioning from an anti-spam measure to a political measure right now (assuming the limit is not raised in the medium term). Some people argue that we need a block size limit enforced by top-down policy to avoid a negative externality of higher node costs--that is, some people argue that the block size limit should serve as political purpose. This is what I disagree with.
Regarding your other quotes, I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate.
Stop twisting definitions until they fit your arguments it is getting really tiring. The block size limit as it currently exist is dictated by the peers in the network. As such, it serves their motivation, whatever it is. Not the ones of the devs or whomever else. Allow me a try at this game of words-twisting of yours  : The top-down policy is an emergent property of the code run by the full nodes. |
|
|
|
...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...
Wow, this sort of blew my mind. Can we prove this somehow? And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging? Yes, basically miners serve as a proxy for investors (in fact miners are a kind of investor as well, but investors pushing up the price incentivize miners to mine). Since investors are who control Bitcoin, miners are also part of "who control Bitcoin" both by proxy and directly. If we cannot trust the market of investors or we cannot trust the market of miners, we cannot trust Bitcoin. This should be no surprise, really, as Satoshi originally spoke of users voting with their CPU power (now read: hashing power) to choose which fork they like. Bitcoin was always an emergent phenomenon of the market, not a planned phenomenon of certain developers. It's easy to confuse this, because certain economic parameters in Bitcoin were planned by Satoshi...but it was not the dev Satoshi who made them part of the World Wide Ledger. It was the market. The market just happened to like his parameters. The market has not expressed an opinion on blocksize because it has never had a chance nor a reason to. Forks give it the chance, and full blocks will soon give it the reason. Combine the two and  So what you're saying is "the market" is just not ready, heh? Yet you fail to account for who "the market" is, which by definition is "the investors". It seems you understand this aspect yet fail to process exactly what this entails. As such this quote begs to be emphasized: "The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things." Now having considered the statement above, please explain to me why the market of investors who make up the majority of Bitcoin investors would be pressed to "change" things in the even of blocks filling up? |
|
|
|
"The community" of people that need things can not fork Bitcoin to provide for their needs at the expense of the actual community of people that create things and own things. Related to this, let us reiterate those ancient points about Bitcoin :
TALKING ABOUT BITCOIN, EVEN IF IN A GROUP, DOES NOT MAKE YOU PART OF BITCOIN. This pretty much sums up the "debate". |
|
|
|
This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is doing just fine.
I suppose this is the crux of the debate. I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive the small blockers as those trying to "save" bitcoin. How does that even compute? The "small blockers" represent the status quo. If it wasn't for the agitprop propaganda us "small blockers" wouldn't even be having this debate. For the history of Bitcoin, the block size limit Qmax served as an anti-spam measure. The free-market equilibrium block size Q* was smaller than this limit. From my vantage point, Q* < Qmax is the status quo. I see the small blockers as the ones who are trying to introduce a new idea: the Qmax should be less than Q* and used as a policy tool by Core Dev to balance fees with the rate of blockchain growth. It still does. "The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it."
"Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it."
"Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!"
GO AWAY
|
|
|
|
This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is doing just fine.
I suppose this is the crux of the debate. I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive those who wish to use the block size limit as a policy tool as those who are trying to "save" bitcoin. Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter? No one really understands Bitcoin--we are all in this learning together. We move forward by presenting our ideas, research and experimental results, and then discussing them freely and openly. We dont give a heck about your ideas peter, you need to accept this. LOL. You prove the opposite every day by talking excessively about Gavin, Mike, Peter R. et alikes. In absence price action one has to entertain himself with something |
|
|
|
The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity. It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool. I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market). Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run. I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.
And how exactly would you go about doing that. Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described. Here is a great post on the topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/I think most of the people running full nodes understand that. This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin. Bitcoin is doing just fine. Bitcoin reflects the will of the economic majority, if the economic majority does not want freedom then Bitcoin could start to reflect that. My point being is that if you convince enough people that they do not have a choice and that they should rely on an authority instead of using their own judgement then Bitcoin can be subverted. In the same way that state democracies can also be subverted and become less free. The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin. https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11You have consistently proven unable to understand who the Bitcoin's economic majority is so your opinion on the subject is worth about the same thing as if I'd ask the hobo down the street. |
|
|
|
This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is doing just fine.
I suppose this is the crux of the debate. I agree that Bitcoin is doing just fine and perceive the small blockers as those trying to "save" bitcoin. How does that even compute? The "small blockers" represent the status quo. If it wasn't for the agitprop propaganda us "small blockers" wouldn't even be having this debate. XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!
Go away. http://trilema.com/2015/third-pass-addressing-the-more-common-pseudo-arguments-raised-by-the-very-stupid-people-that-like-the-gavin-scamcoin-proposal/ |
|
|
|
*educating*
wow, no kidding.
I know right Who holds the benevolent educator position? You, Peter? |
|
|
|
The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity. It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool. I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market). Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run. I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.
And how exactly would you go about doing that. Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described. Here is a great post on the topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/I think most of the people running full nodes understand that. This is the problem I have with some of you people: this presumption that somehow you need to save Bitcoin. Bitcoin is doing just fine. |
|
|
|
The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity. It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool. I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.
And how exactly would you go about doing that. |
|
|
|
...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...
Wow, this sort of blew my mind. Can we prove this somehow? And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging? Yes we can prove this is not true by simply demonstrating that characterization of miners as a group is pure socialist drivel. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
