|
Interesting, can you imagine the drama if the card networks pulled the rug right from under block stream. Might even warrent a #rekt
|
|
|
|
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin  There you go again, trying to sell XT using the fear of Bitcoin dying. Bitcoin is stronger than ever, in part thanks to the adversity provided by the attempted Gavinista governance coup. You XTurds truly deserve to be exiled together on the Island of Misfit Gavinistas. Such strange bedfellows the failed putsch has created! It sounds like a joke... Frap.doc (a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist), Peter R (a clueless spherical cow counter), and J Trolfi (King Buttcoin) walk into Satoshi's bar. 2 hours later, united by their common hatred of Team Core, they are giggling like long lost sisters. "Let's get out of here" says Frap.doc. "Yes," responds Peter R, "the drinks are terrible, and the pours are too small!"  I think what iCEBREAKER said is on point, basically to sum it, there's no way raising the blocksize to 20, or even 8mb will get you anywhere close to where we need to be. There's no way around something like blockstream if you want to achieve VISA level transactions in the future. I am in favour of raising it a bit, but have in mind, there is no huge scalability possible if everything happens on chain.
I agree big blocks aren't *the* solution to scaling. What Ice'n'Berg won't accept is that the block size limit should be increased or removed so that it doesn't cause a problem. They argue that is using fear to justify it, when anyone with a shred of common sense can see its just prudence. Fear of centralisation is a concern, and for that reason I'd say that right now removing the limit entirely is probably equally risky as keeping at 1MB. The mundane truth, as ever, is that somewhere in the middle is likely best. |
|
|
|
Reminding everyone here, who claims that every user needs to be able to run a full node. Quoting Satoshi Nakamoto:
"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets." "But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore." "The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."
Boring appeal to authority. BTW had you no shame sharing the misleading "article" of a known scammer!?: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=998257.msg12620721#msg12620721Really awkward isn't it though. |
|
|
|
Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.
...."a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash" I'm not certain how it is you are attempting to twist these words but surely it means every user wishing to participate/transact in a truly peer-to-peer manner needs to run a full node. There is no way around it. What is "the bitcoin payment network" anyway if not a collection of its users? "...would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another..." you are assuming that each party is a peer satoshi said himself that at scale, not everyone would run a full node, that users would run lightweight wallets. by "bitcoin payment network" I mean the people doing the full node thing. |
|
|
|
|
Does purely peer-to-peer refer to every single user, or just the bitcoin payment network? My reading of that statement is that purely peer to peer refers to the nodes that make up the payment network, not that every end user needs to run a node.
|
|
|
|
Dorian knows what's up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjgI thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition. Note the emphasis against centralisation. If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought. Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination. Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..That's a rather interesting comment... Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works? conjectures & feelings. lel Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"! tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks? Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions. AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue. What is to stop them hard forking? You can't be serious.... Do you know what a hard fork is? I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything. Okay you seriously need me to point out why you are so obviously wrong here? Bitcoin's blockchain = the longest valid chain. Miners could very well start broadcasting bigger blocks but unless every single node in the network move forward with that decision the only thing they will succeed at is forking themselves out of the network and mining their own worthless chain. My previous post was about demonstrating that miners don't hold the power you pretend they do because if they did then Bitcoin would be broken. In reality they only enforce the rules decided on by the peers on the network. They certainly can't and will never get to decide to change the protocol on the basis of what's best for them. You know what you are right, I forgot that nodes have to relay blocks not just transactions. That could be a problem then! |
|
|
|
Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions.
I mean..... Do you even economics? I think your confusion is trying to apply economics to something that is grade school math, 100 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 10BTC reward 200 transactions with a 0.1 fee = 20BTC reward heres the complicated bit, pay attention 20 > 10 |
|
|
|
Dorian knows what's up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjgI thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition. Note the emphasis against centralisation. If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought. Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination. Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..That's a rather interesting comment... Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works? conjectures & feelings. lel Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"! tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks? Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions. AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue. What is to stop them hard forking? You can't be serious.... Do you know what a hard fork is? I know you are desperate for me to be wrong, but you should set it aside. Its clouding your ability to grok anything. |
|
|
|
Of course they can hard fork upwards, and even soft fork downwards much more easily. Currently transactions are strongly under cost, so it's much more likely that they would soft fork down than they hard fork up. http://alexgorale.com/bitcoin-block-size-riskWhy would they soft fork downwards? Fee pressure? I'm not the first to think it but I thought the 'stress tests' were fee pressure too. |
|
|
|
Just to illustrate how spectacularly retarded your conception of Bitcoin is:
If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway mining 50 BTC blocks, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought.
Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit subsidy should remain at 25BTC. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination.
Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining 50 BTC blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen.
That's a rather interesting comment... Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works? When you can't prove someone wrong, then pretend they said something silly and call them retarded. Solid. If you can't tell the difference between fundamental rules and temporary DDoS measures then you are on thin ice calling other people stupid. |
|
|
|
Dorian knows what's up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjgI thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition. Note the emphasis against centralisation. If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought. Thats the reality of it lmao, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination. Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. lololol whatever bro, still cant fill half of the 1MB average blocksize tho, just sayin..That's a rather interesting comment... Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works? conjectures & feelings. lel Is that not allowed? Perhaps I need to be "moderated"! tell me brg444 why miners couldn't get together and start mining bigger blocks? Blocks are full, transactions are backing up, fees are rising such that it would make a significant difference to the block reward if you could include twice as many transactions. AntPool, F2Pool, BTCChina, BW Mining, and Huobi see that this is the case, and having over 50% of hash rate figure that if they all start mining and accepting 2MB blocks then they are on balance going to generate more revenue. What is to stop them hard forking? |
|
|
|
Will 8MB blocks right now cause this. Probably not.
Will 8GB blocks right now cause this. Probably.
Are you going to Peter R's school of science? Your science can prove it either way? Go ahead. Ill continue to look at uncertainty in terms of probability. |
|
|
|
Dorian knows what's up: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nzqqh/hi_rbitcoin_i_am_dorian_nakamoto_ama/cvsyyjgI thought it was a wonderful concept for our global transaction based on fully meshed internet world. Distributed processing vs. centralization. More robust. And the purpose to serve the people even down to the poor rather than the profit base, open source software, ... Best financial invention in this uncertain dollar based or the next exchange based competition. Note the emphasis against centralisation. Centralised is the concept that something happens in one location, or is controlled by one entity. Decentralised means that it is not. So if two nodes are running, its decentralised. Obviously, if 10 nodes are running its *more* decentralised. What "small blockers against centralisation" crowd seem to want us to believe is that to be decentralised then that means every single one of them has to be abe to run a full node or it doesn't count as *true* decentralisation, and that having bigger blocks means they can't so this. This is blatantly fans in two counts. Firstly not everyone of them needs to be able to run a node for the network to be counted as decentralised. There just needs to be two or more independent node operators. Secondly, the idea that it is *impossible* for them to run a node. It's not it s sliding scale of difficulty, based on a whole bunch of variables, many of which are in the uncertain future. So you can't possibly say its impossible. They are asking us to believe that modify the block size will inevitably lead to the most extreme negative outcome. When in reality they cannot possibly know this. I cannot possibly know that it will not either, let me be clear. What you can do is look at the balance of probability. Will 8MB blocks right now cause this. Probably not. Will 8GB blocks right now cause this. Probably. Nobody is asking for the second case. Furthermore its massively unlikely that raising the limit to 8GB would automatically mean that 8GB blocks start being generated. It's also quite unlikely that raising the limit to 8MB means that 8MB blocks start being generated, because miner's won't do that, because its not worth their while. If it was worth their while, and that applied to the majority of miners, then they would probably get together and agree to start accepting bigger blocks anyway, and wouldn't give a damn what core thought. Thats the reality of it, and thats why I am not particularly worried any more about all this hot air about why the block size limit should remain at 1MB. The people who stand to make/lose the most will do what is needed. They have the power to, and the inclination. Miners aren't stupid. If they see they can make more money mining huge blocks with loads of transaction fees. They will make it happen. |
|
|
|
Op,
why u still arguing with the fagnamic duo ?
Because they are the cancer killing /b/itcoin |
|
|
|
We could've saved a lot of time if you had told me up front you're with the gang that proposes nodes will eventually be run in datacenters.
That is the default position... The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be. Those few nodes will be big server farms. The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.
|
|
|
|
A Pre-emptive strike!
Nope, the cap has changed several times. It's there because transactions are included under cost so it's a trivial and cheap DoS attack to just fill up blocks until miners and nodes just give up. It's a known fact that subsidy will continue dropping until either this changes (txs being included under cost) or Bitcoin fails (because it currently depends on subsidisation). Yes they are, and if you want to believe that mike, gavin, XT and BIP101 had nothing to do with making that happen sooner rather than later, then feel free.
Gavin and Mike have obviously been delaying all development with their nonsense. Lots of people have been distracted by this bullshit. They have certainly slowed down my contribution in a number of projects. The Core devs that have been contributing during the last couple of years (not Gavin or Mikey, who have done fuck-all in Core or anything outside of their personal projects) have been forced to waste their time because of the attack threats and the lobbying. Either way it doesn't matter, provided the increase happens in time to ensure that block size can grow naturally, then everyone is happy right? We all win right?
If we need to increase block sizes more rather than less because other preferable scalability solutions have been stalled, then in fact we're worse off. However, it's not possible to know the exact degree of the damage the cancers have caused. The silver lining is that they are well and truly ostracised from development, which is a great thing for Bitcoin. They can go back to work in some stupid kickstarter clone or whatever is more appropriate for them to do. The silent sobbing is real. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/ When all you have is a ban hammer everything starts to look like a nail. |
|
|
|
 That was a rhetorical question. The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce. That's just straight up delusional. Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve. Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all. Precisely. You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes. What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation. You are so dumb. There is no such thing as "good enough decentralization". If I can't run a node because it costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth then Bitcoin is effectively worthless to me. The only way to use Bitcoin in a truly trustless and private manner is by running a node. Bitcoin is about monetary sovereignty, not depending on corporations, banking parasites and everyone else that can afford datacenters to maintain the network. A PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK. You are presenting a false dichotomy. If running a full node costs several thousand dollars and 1GB/s bandwidth the Bitcoin is worth a whole lot to a whole lot of other people. It being worthless to you is your call, not an absolute. You don't need to run a full node, you might want to. I want bitcoin to totally replace cash. We both have our dreams  |
|
|
|
That was a rhetorical question. The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce. That's just straight up delusional. Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve. Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all. Precisely. You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes. What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin has become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation. I'd agree. I don't need brg444 to run a node. I can run my own. If brg444 needs brg444 to run a node, then brg444 needs to pony up and get it run.
This is not a "leap of faith", this is downright naive.
I'm sorry but what you posit is straight up nonsense. The miners are not a group, there is no such thing as "their own best economic interest". It is a competitive environment and they seek profit first and foremost. Miners with the most resources will set a limit beyond what the smallest players are capable of handling to eventually drive them out of the market.
You are right that they have talked amongst themselves before, it was to organize this SPV mining scheme that succeeded in causing a fork of the network. Are you really suggesting we trust these guys to do what's best "for the greater good"!?
Miners the group is made up of many individual miners. An individual miner is on balance likely to do what is best for itself. It is not naive to rely on an individual acting in their own best interests. Miners that mine really big blocks to try and force out smaller players face the risk of a smaller player mining a smaller block faster and orphaning the big block. Thats a really simplified example. Reality is far more complicated. So much so that its very difficult to know for sure exactly what will happen - that to me is the leap of faith. Before Peter R went bonkers with his GIF he did put together a paper which, albeit not perfect, was a good model. Yes, spherical cow etc thing is its the closes to a model we have seen, and it intuitively makes sense because it is analogous to well understood economic theory on supply and demand. What are the chances that the economics around blockchain resources broadly confirm to the simple principals of supply and demand and price discovery? What are the chances that some entirely novel and as yet previously unseen economic model independently arises that entirely screws up the whole of bitcoin? I dunno based on balance of probability though I'd say A: That the market can figure all this shit out and that we don't need to try and impose artificial constraints. |
|
|
|
Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it! You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....
Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.
The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.
A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption. You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust. I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them. From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be? Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem. And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out. If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open. I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance. The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history. Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply? After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom". I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"? How do you enforce them? I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits? Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt? Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.  That was a rhetorical question. The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce. That's just straight up delusional. You're right! But I would posit that they don't need to agree, they all need to act in their own best economic interest and that the free market will decide the most efficient conditions. (one might argue that they would talk amongst themselves and come to some consensus as this would be in there best economic interest. they have before, though of course they may not again). I accept this is somewhat of a leap of faith, but the opposite requires on being smarter than the average bear. Humans are not, we are married to the idea that we are smart, and blind to all our flaws as a result. |
|
|
|
I'm now going to switch back to "BIP101/XT died for our sins", because it will be clear that it did, should the block size increase.
Nope, block sizes are dead certain to increase at some point and they always were. But if you feel better believing in the tooth fairy, feel free. A Pre-emptive strike! Yes they are, and if you want to believe that mike, gavin, XT and BIP101 had nothing to do with making that happen sooner rather than later, then feel free. I like how you portray me as having all the answers yet you pretend to be absolutely right about this one. Let me guess, you feel it in your guts, right? You're just going to ignore that it was Matt Corallo that engaged the debate on the dev mailing list and that two months later Mike & Gavin decided they wouldn't play ball anymore and decide to stifle discussions and launch their failed coup? I don't have all the answers, you are right. I'm not pretending to be right, I'm having a contrary opinion to the previous poster (whilst also agreeing with his initial premise). That's allowed isn't it? If you are referring to this post Matt Corallo was *responding* to Gavin's blog posts... (I assume that's what you mean by engaging the debate?) Maybe, if Gavin hadn't made those posts, we'd be in exactly the same place right now. Maybe Matt would have posted something anyway. Maybe everything would have progressed exactly the same. IMHO I doubt it, but as you rightly said, I can't know that for sure. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
