I bet the small block proponents are super pleased to have you arguing there corner right now  You are doing a stand up job of representing them! |
|
|
|
There is a commit by Gavin which is not a fix, but rather a limitation per transaction (IRC). This is 'not a fix' but a bad workaround that limits the system. Imagine if you applied that logic to the blocksize!  |
|
|
|
dear grandpa sgbett.
It must have been an amazing post. Sadly you're ignored.
Ignoring is a funny thing. People wave it around like a threat, like they have some kind of power over the other. The only thing ignoring serves to do is to insulate the 'ignorer' against having to consider another point of view. There are countless people that I disagree with, and likely more that disagree with me! I still read their posts, the ones that aren't banal and trolling might contain something that I can learn from - however much it may differ from my opinion. I'm secure enough to know that being wrong about something isn't some huge character flaw, or qualitative judgement on me as a person. So whenever anyone says they have 'ignored' someone, to me, it just demonstrates how close minded a person is. To be so insecure in your own beliefs that you cannot bear to even consider an alternative? Opinions formed in a vacuum, out of fear and superstition? How can anything that person says have any credibility.
|
|
|
|
This is frightening.
Are you aware that invalid forks with the longest chain can and do happen and they are ignored because they don't follow consensus rules?
Are you aware that miners can continue hashing all they want and if the economic majority of nodes disagree with their chain being valid than it is ignored and those blocks are orphaned?
Do you understand that the economic majority of nodes holds the power to dictate what chain is valid and whether a chain is longer or not is secondary to the consensus rules of these nodes being followed?
What's actually frightening to me that these people actually think they can take over Bitcoin. We've talked about it many times. They've spent countless funds to propaganda and whatnot. Their days are counted. We are well entrenched, they can't do shit to damage the system. They don't have the balls to actually do 51% attack. "Us and them" very droll. |
|
|
|
What is your definition of valid chain?
The one that everyone agrees is valid or the one where a small minority refuse to accept things have moved on.
The longest chain, will invariably be the longest 'valid' chain by definition. The longest chain (discounting for luck/variance) is the one with most hashing power. The longest *defines* valid.
So the word valid is redundant, and using it doesn't make any sense.
If a >1MB block gets mined and that chain stays longest (because the majority build on top of it) then sorry dear, it was tonight.
Until it does we watch and wait, and people continue to post drama on the internets.
This is frightening. Are you aware that invalid forks with the longest chain can and do happen and they are ignored because they don't follow consensus rules? Are you aware that miners can continue hashing all they want and if the economic majority of nodes disagree with their chain being valid than it is ignored and those blocks are orphaned? Do you understand that the economic majority of nodes holds the power to dictate what chain is valid and whether a chain is longer or not is secondary to the consensus rules of these nodes being followed? What is frightening? That you misunderstand? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and blame me for not explaining well enough. For miners to build on top of a block then nodes would have to have propagated it to them, i'm sorry that I didn't explain this. I should not have assumed implicit knowledge. So to be doubly clear, if the majority hash rate is ming >1MB blocks and the nodes are propagating >1MB blocks then that is the longest chain and by definition it is valid. So I say again 'valid' is redundant. |
|
|
|
|
What is your definition of valid chain?
The one that everyone agrees is valid or the one where a small minority refuse to accept things have moved on.
The longest chain, will invariably be the longest 'valid' chain by definition. The longest chain (discounting for luck/variance) is the one with most hashing power. The longest *defines* valid.
So the word valid is redundant, and using it doesn't make any sense.
If a >1MB block gets mined and that chain stays longest (because the majority build on top of it) then sorry dear, it was tonight.
Until it does we watch and wait, and people continue to post drama on the internets.
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but there's a mechanism for handling consensus disputes built into the code.
While I can appreciate that there is a human element, it doesn't mean that changes should be vetoed by any minority that decides it's not on board.
What about we ignore your consensus? It's funny just how riled up you get by the truth! Like you are desperate to try and discredit it. In your haste, you didn't even make sense! |
|
|
|
That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.
Good approved and validated sources confirm it.
Kind of like how Reddit and KnC and Slush supported XT/BIP101, until they didn't. 8 minutes, thats gotta be a record! |
|
|
|
|
That strange because I was at that same meeting, and no such thing was said. In fact there was unanimous support for Bitcoin Classic from all present, and they said that everyone that wasn't there backed it too.
Good approved and validated sources confirm it.
|
|
|
|
There are other issues with small blocks. Long transaction confirmations times are just the tip of the ice'n'berg. I believe that's why Satoshi was so blasé about how easy it was to increase the limit with a simple change.
There are other issues with morons like you. Long to validate transactions are just the tip of iceberg. I believe that's why I've just Ignored you. That'll learn me. |
|
|
|
Rage level over 9000. threats of nuclear options. Stick with us or else.
Keep pushing the agenda that it's everyone else trying to "destroy Bitcoin" though won't y'all.
2 MB blocks are indeed dangerous ATM. It is possible to construct a transaction that would take too long to validate (over 10 minutes) due to the quadratic scaling (validation time). There are other issues with large blocks. Long to validate transactions are just the tip of iceberg. I believe that's why Satoshi eventually deferred the removal of his limit. There are other issues with small blocks. Long transaction confirmations times are just the tip of the ice'n'berg. I believe that's why Satoshi was so blasé about how easy it was to increase the limit with a simple change. |
|
|
|
A client can do things. Miners decide if they use it. The ceo and customers can only petition the client maintainers.
You must have misunderstood my point, but nevermind. Can kicking is preferable to nothing. Unless you have a strong motive to do nothing?
In what world does SegWit equal to 'doing nothing'? The time needed for SegWit will probably be very similar to the time at which the fork would active (if Classic had enough support). So it is not really a question about time. I want segwit. I think its great, because its a big help to getting LN. I really want LN, because I think that its an essential part of the road to allowing crypto replace fiat. I think blockstream are probably not bad guys. I'm open to the idea that not everything will be done on chain, and that's ok (provided Layer-N solutions share the same key attributes of being open source, peer to peer, do not require the use of their party, allows you to be your own bank etc) What I don't want is all the bullshit. 2MB is nothing. Its just a contingency. The scaling roadmap accepts it as viable. Adam Back accepts it is viable. A whole bunch of miners have agreed it is viable. There is overwhelming support for it, and yet core won't merge it. This is absolutely the antithesis to the idea that bitcoin is decentralised. A few people are controlling bitcoin development and that is a fact. It is centralised right now. The massive amounts of fud that has been posted ever since there has been any sniff of alternative implementations. Lets indulge the conspiracy theory that Hearn was an insider and that the extra stuff he put in XT was 'bad'. XT is off the table. Lets indulge the idea that 8MB with 2^n scaling was over zealous. BIP101 is off the table. Lets now take a look at the massive reduction in scope and resource usage in the latest proposal for a short term fix to the potential risks of persistently full blocks that classic is offering. 2MB with no further predefined scaling (possibly no opt in RBF). Running classic is not the threat to the network that certain people would have you beleive. If enough people run it then maybe blocks bigger than 1MB will be mined, up to a maximum of 2MB. If there is no need then block sizes won't even go up that much, if block suddenly jump to 2MB then its clear there was definitely a need! Increasing the block size to 2MB doesn't mean I wont every transaction on chain, it doesn't mean that I think that increasing blocksize increases the scalability of bitcoin, it doesn't mean that I think increasing the blocksize limit is the *only* solution to increasing throughput. It just means that I think blocks are filling up so it would be prudent to give some headroom. There is nothing nefarious about it, there is nothing uneducated about it there is no massive threat to decentralisation. Nothing more than capacity planning. Remember I am *for* LN, I am for segwit, I don't think that short term headroom is any threat to those things. moving from 3-7 TPS to 6-14 does not mean that suddenly we don't need real scaling solutions!!! Core could gracefully acknowledge that perhaps on this one thing they might have been wrong, or they could instead make threats about switching POW algorithms to try and maintain their grip on the one true bitcoin. Are they really going to do that over this one issue, is gmaxwell *that* obstinate, are the the other devs really going to back him? Doing the latter though is just more of that bullshit that *nobody* wants. Alternative implementations are not a threat they are a means to the end of consensus. Luke-jr has it right: [–] luke-jr Bitcoin Expert 2 points 1 year ago If the majority of nodes ran btcd, the protocol would de facto be defined by btcd - you are correct. ..snip... |
|
|
|
No the idea is to decentralize development that way NO group of devs has much influence over the anything but their own implementation.
So that the CEO and the customers tell you what the best way of configuring the server (or network, whichever analogy you prefer) is, even though you're a server (or network) engineer? Does this make sense to you? Let's not forget here that there would be a major change if something like Classic would take of: think of this team of newbies (Gavin excluded, but he's not a permanent team member) taking control of the consensus rules?
Let's not forget the fact that 2 MB blocks essentially solve nothing. They kick the can down the road (the question is by how much). A client can do things. Miners decide if they use it. The ceo and customers can only petition the client maintainers. Can kicking is preferable to nothing. Unless you have a strong motive to do nothing? |
|
|
|
|
Rage level over 9000. threats of nuclear options. Stick with us or else.
Keep pushing the agenda that it's everyone else trying to "destroy Bitcoin" though won't y'all.
|
|
|
|
...
Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.
Doesn't anyone else see the irony in the proposed solution to "keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence" is to make sure its only usable by a small group of elite's headed up my MP Frying pan / Fire. When your proposed solution is, what, exactly? To transfer influence over the code to an even smaller group of devs, sans their big friend, banking shill Mike Hearn? Bitcoin already has dozens of devs competing to get good code into the client, and Bitcoin takeover shills (like yourself) can't change that for "Bitcoin Classic" with conceited statements any more than you could for "Bitcoin XT" Hand waves, look at those guys building something else, they are the baddest, pay no attention to the guy overtly threatening to destroy things. |
|
|
|
These small blockers seem to be getting very defensive lately.
They seem to perceive that an economic majority taking over
Bitcoin would be an attack or a threat.
"Then they fight you!" |
|
|
|
...
Point #2 sounds a bit ominous. I'm left wondering where all this will end up lately but it does seem as if these guys care about keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence.
Doesn't anyone else see the irony in the proposed solution to "keeping Bitcoin free of gov influence" is to make sure its only usable by a small group of elite's headed up my MP Frying pan / Fire. |
|
|
|
Holy Bikesheds, Batman!
....
You are funny, that article links directly to the bit fury paper. 3 Conclusion
In order for the Bitcoin ecosystem to continue developing, the maximum block size needs to be in-creased.
|
|
|
|
they eliminated 0 conf transactions in their idea of scalability so every vendor will have to reprogram everything to do reasonably quick will have to reprogram everything to work with new more complex interface.
You mean opt-in RBF? "Classic" will have this too, right? 0 conf rules ..da fuq Don't worry. If you like your 0 conf, you can keep your 0 conf.* *Disclaimer: 0 conf was never secure in the first place.Security isn't an is/isn't dichotomy. Zeroconf on a $5 coffee might fit your risk model, an interbank transfer of $3m then one, two or even 6 confirmations may not be enough. Accepting Zeroconf is a choice. RBF takes away that choice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
