It helps to think of it as a tragedy of the commons: absent of a blocksize it will eventually become in the miner's best interest to include as many transactions as possible in their blocks and consequently restricting access to governance of the network by way of bloating the blockchain.
'Yes' on the tragedy of the commons comparison at first, but 'no' if you think it through a bit more... Only the biggest pools matter anyway, both in a vote and a self-enforced scenario I describe. Let's call them A, B, C. A vote to hard enforce scarcity will only succeed if A, B, C individually want scarcity anyway, so I'm allowed to make that assumption for my scenario as well. Now, your objection (ToC) is valid in principle, that it is indeed in each of A, B, C's personal interest to include as much as possible contrary to the larger scarcity goal, but I point out that in this particular scenario, self governing is less likely to fail because (a) cooperation needs to be established only among a small group of actors (i.e. pool operators) that directly control the majority behavior, and are able to directly communicate with each other (as opposed to a large, amorphous population that usually underlies ToC type scenarios), and (b) because defection is publicly visible. If, say, the two or three largest pools really want scarcity, they could try to cooperate, set a limit, and self-enforce it. (yes, free market lovers, that's a form of collusion). Blocksize is public, so cheating is possible but visible. If cooperation of the relevant majority fails (which I consider unlikely, as per the argument above), it makes sense to talk about voting processes and hard coded limits, but not before it has been established that this type of cooperation cannot be handled by individual actors.* * Yes, that last one is an axiom of sorts, not an empirical claim. Something like, "don't solve with laws what possibly, in most cases, can be solved by individual rationality". I'd suspect most 'coiners are not entirely alien to the idea though. What a great post. Lucid and precise. Thanks for taking the time to post it. |
|
|
|
Right now most bitcoin users are completely unaware of the blacklist, we need to spread this information asap. Please retweet my tweet or make your own. We need this information to reach both the media and the community, it's a fundamental threat to bitcoin https://twitter.com/turtlehurricane/status/633844328205430784Heck, what's the big deal? Can't you just remove the IPs in list above, recompile and run your own XT version that would even trust Stalin's personal node? This is not a fundamental issue. The code is open-source: you are free to remove/edit any source code to your liking. My dad can't. Neither can my mother, 2 sisters, grandfather, grandmother, most of my cousins or my wife. Thats the big deal unless you want to come round and do it for us everytime there is an update? Sounds like you picked the worlds worst sys admin team there. Sorry for ya troubles, brah....  |
|
|
|
BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.
How is getting a list of tor exit nodes "adding trust"? There is no editorialising of the list - its just what tor returns. That doesn't matter (whether or not it remains true). What matters is that we are downloading and trusting a central list that is published by a third party (torproject.org now -- who knows, later).... That is the very definition of trust. Nodes can see IP addresses that are DDOSing them. They can deprioritize them as needed without downloading a list from a (trusted) third party. Why is this even a subject of discussion? If they have the skills to do that, why don't you think they can set a value in a conf file? |
|
|
|
BIP101 and XT are separate issues. I oppose both, although I do support some mechanism for increasing block size limit, generally. IF BIP101 is going to happen (doubtful), we as a community need to discourage the use of XT, as its default implementation (which the vast majority of nodes will use) contains trust-adding features, and unnecessarily so.
How is getting a list of tor exit nodes "adding trust"? There is no editorialising of the list - its just what tor returns. |
|
|
|
I don't get why something has so suddenly enchanted so many when there's zero code to actually fap over. Its called "clutching at straws" + miners love it!! Some core devs are coming out with how its such a bad idea to allow miners to vote for block size. There are other solutions - btcdreks bipxx is one, but it has a serious flaw in that it incentivizes miners to vote for smaller blocks ( for free) |
|
|
|
One last time:
Does bigger blocks benefit Lightning? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Sidechains? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Blockstream? Yes!
Then why do they fight so hard against them? Why do you fight so hard against them? You are now entering the Orwellian phase of your argument. You go from chanting "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" to "4 legs good, 2 legs Better!!" Fact remains that the core desire towards a fee market is to facilitate the use of off-chain solutions such as sidechains/LN or whatever your having yourself. |
|
|
|
...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....
So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive. Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101. Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks..... Actually I also do not support BIP 101 because it has a 8GB hard blocksize limit. Dat no good. Everyone know 8 very very rucky number in China. Good man, I was thinking that casual racism was the one thing missing from this debate. Thanks for stepping out of your trailer and contributing!!  |
|
|
|
It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?
Cool defense - They are all doing it, so why can't we? This is the best example yet of your ideological bankruptcy.  |
|
|
|
I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?
You are the one who needs to try harder. You're basic strategy of insults, lies and quick changes of course don't fool anyone ( unless they want to be fooled) Honesty does not rest easy with you. But you are willing to blag your way through, in the vain hope that sufficient volume will make up for lack of wisdom. |
|
|
|
I, for one, welcome any option which allows me to use the strength of Bitcoin as a backing yet not spam the blockchain with my inconsequential activity. 99.99% of my activity simply does not need the extreme security offered (currently) by being a perminent fixture in the native Bitcoin blockchain.
 |
|
|
|
Quit being a whiny little cunt.
You stay classy, Blockstream!!  |
|
|
|
Now it’s not surprising that investors must be puzzled about what’s going on now with all this FUD, because they weren’t told that there were other solutions. And that’s exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people don’t want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Core’s developers… It’s that simple.
I'm sure the presentations deliberately played down the key risks to the blockstream strategy. Its up to due diligence on the part of investors to confirm these. This debate serves to highlight them. A controversy like this can leave even the most carefully crafted value proposition in tatters. The attempts to subdue the debate with threats (NotXT - nice one, Adam Back), blatant censorship and plain misinformation will further damage Blockstreams standing and ability to secure funding. |
|
|
|
I wouldn't be holding out for a solution from that particular 150$CAD-a-head geek-in : This event will not host sessions on the topic of any specific proposals involving changes to the Bitcoin protocol. Such proposals would be the topic of a 2nd, follow-on Phase 2 workshop described below; this event is intended to “set the stage” for work on and evaluation of specific proposals in the time between the workshops Better wait for HK in December. |
|
|
|
Aaaaand how Core devs ignoring a large group of the market asking for scalability solution in a timely manner is not totalitarianism?
Blocks aren't full now, why do you need a TEMPORARY solution now when the problem doesn't yet exist? And larger block sizes aren't a sustainable long term scalability solution. So you are saying that reactionary solutions are to be preferred over pro-active solutions? Can you give me an example? Larger blocks address near term limitations imposed solely by the arbitrary 1mb limit. There are other scalability issues that bitcoin will face on its way to wider acceptance and use, but to be honest, we cant make plans for 5 billion users when we barely have 3 transaction per second right now. |
|
|
|
You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong....
Oh dear God. I keep trying to point out things that illustrate his ignorance, but he always beats me to it. |
|
|
|
I'm sure you are qualified to speak hardware with the folks at BitFury. I suggest you go ahead and write them an email and try to change their mind. Until then...
#REKT
Your posts, as a collection, amount to a veritable orgy of the dunning-kruger effect. Good work.  |
|
|
|
So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!
Wait... So you are now on our side  How did that happen? On the road to Damascus? Someone call cointelegraph.com - "brg444 in pro big block shocker" There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.
I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care. You are now going through the denial phase of your grief. hhhrrrmmfff... I never said I was against bigger blocks... Some of my best friends are bigger blocks... hhrrrmmppff Lambchop are you not satisfied trolling the speculation section you have to spread your ignorance here as well?  Coming from you, I will take that as a huge compliment!! Thanks, mate. But alas no, brony free zone here. |
|
|
|
So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!
Wait... So you are now on our side How did that happen? On the road to Damascus? Someone call cointelegraph.com - "brg444 in pro big block shocker" There is a distinction here. It's going to be bigger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for.
I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care. You are now going through the denial phase of your grief. hhhrrrmmfff... I never said I was against bigger blocks... Some of my best friends are bigger blocks... hhrrrmmppff |
|
|
|
Also, unlike the childish rethoric of poors vs rich or smallblockers vs. blockstream brought to you by very naive people, Mike & Gavin have pretty much revealed themselves as indeed very dangerous for Bitcoin. That's a difference and it needs to be addressed. AFAIK none of the small blocks proponent have put the ecosystem at risk like these two clowns did.
Yes, XT has already lost:
You continue to be a source of comedy gold. You have been played for a fool, and now you are out on your own, alone, with nothing to fight. The debate will continue without you - we are now deciding what size the increase will be. We? It seems to me team Blockstream is leading the debate as we speak! Who do you represent? The 8MBers? Ewww. You may be right, this block size capitulation makes their humiliation complete |
|
|
|
So... you're getting get 2MB, not much more. I hope this can satisfy your urge for transactions!
Wait... So you are now on our side How did that happen? On the road to Damascus? Someone call cointelegraph.com - "brg444 in pro big block shocker" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
