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.

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?

is this off topic again? I can't tell. Is it disconnected from reality to think that the future is uncertain? Sign me up for my meds.

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.

Of course it will be easy for the small blockers to say 'that was going to happen anyway' even though right now they are arguing it most certainly won't.

Its great when you aren't shackled to a view point, it means you can have an open mind, change what you believe based on new information. All that kind of crazy stuff. The small block shacklees will of course post tidbits of prior comments and demand that you stick by something you said. Unable to comprehend that people can move forward.

You're underestimating the speculation subform if you think that thread doesn't fit in perfectly there...

Sorry i drifted off topic.

I'll go back to my "just you wait till december" stance then

When Jan rolls around you can give me a good kicking for being wrong eh!

You are dumbfounded about something? That needs to go on record. Usually you have all the answers

Yes you can't predict future events and so you should not take a course of action that is based on assuming something will or will not happen. Instead you should take a course of action that allows for (and positively embraces) the widest possible range of scenarios.

You have read Taleb haven't you, you know how antifragility works? You can see that imposing an artificial limit creates a fragile system? You are locked in to a particular view/model. If that model is not right then there is the potential for great loss.

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.

Yes the market hasn't decided it needs bigger blocks. This will continue to be true, until it's not. Nobody needs to rewrite anything.

Both of you continue to speak like everything is decided, and because you are right now, that you will be right always.

As I said this is supreme arrogance, as well as a profound failure to understand something as simple as the fact that things can change. Its like you think that if you argue really hard and stamp your feet and shout loudest that you think you can control it. You can't, I can't. The future of bitcoin is unknown and its emergent behaviour of all participants. If the market needs bigger blocks they will happen, however loudly you protest, and regardless of what the bitcoin core implementation has. If the market does not need bigger blocks then none of this will matter and core stays relevant. If bigger blocks aren't needed there will be a good reason I am sure, and it won't be 'artificial'.

That moral high ground you are so desperate to avoid is where real people make real decisions. This troll infested cesspool of a thread is where you and ice try and pimp out your own personal view of what you think bitcoin should be as if it were a fact.

It's not. You don't know what bitcoin will be, neither do I. You can only keep saying what you want it to be. It's important that anyone reading this understand that your opinions aren't fact. These posts are not for you to respond to, because there is nothing constructive you can say. You may as well not even bother reading them. In fact it'd be better all round if you just put me on ignore.

I agree BIP100 is a terrible proposal. I agree it can be gamed, and so it will be gamed. I agree it was only produced to try and neutralise the 'threat' of XT.

I also believe that nobody will take it seriously and it will go no further.

Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.

Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.

This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.

The difference is that I haven't tried to draw a straight line on an exponential trend.

A straight line? really?

You should judge advice on merit. Not on preconceived ideas about the person delivering it. Spam filter could simply mean adjusting your mintxrelayfee, whilst I don't like the precedent that sets I would grudgingly agree that its a necessary evil until such time as the block size limit is increased to the point where attempting to DDoS is no longer cost effective.

I am sure other, more sophisticated methods for deciding on what constitutes spam will emerge as the need dictates. Free market at work.

*poof* as if by magic another BIP appears!

http://coinjournal.net/a-new-block-size-increase-bip-is-planned-for-the-rough-consensus-from-montreal/#

all this "wasted effort" *rolls eyes* I wonder if both sides will claim 'victory'.

Yeah I remember that thread, it was food for thought indeed. I think it reconciles with the idea that we can't (sadly) see 560k this november - as I said a couple posts back my timing was waaaaay out

That hypothetical 4 year bubble though, that could hit in 5 years time and still work out ok in terms of power (imho).

For now we probably have a smaller bubble in stall one that takes about 3 months, maybe even touches 5 digits, followed by 5 years of 'bear' back down to low 4 digits.

"Ouchies" springs to mind.

You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears!

History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority.

thanks

its all a bit pie in the sky but I can see this kind of price action giving people a real hard time!

This comment cheered me right up. Maybe there is some life left in this forum yet

I wildly underestimated one of the variables (as humans are wont to do) - time. Think I am bang on the money about the price though, I think $560k is the big one before it levels out around the 300k mark. the 'ristoprice' any move to a million after that would have to be decades long so not in my lifetime.

As you've said though, i think its a multi year move, such that the noise during it will seem like huge price moves whilst its happening but with hindsight it will all become clear.

Look at November '13:

It starts out in the 200's and by the end of the month we'd hit $1,200 - about 4 weeks say. Prior to that several months spent

so imagine we spend the next year or two slowly working back up to 1000

On the 9th Nov '13, the opening price was around 350 after several days of steady climbing, that day it hit $400. The following morning a plunge back down to $300 which was tested a couple times. At this point without a crystal ball it was anyone's guess what was going to happen. We were already well over the previous all time high. Calls of a bubble were already starting, it has to crash any time!

Instead it carried on marching up relentlessly for the following week.

On the 18th it broke $600, and went on to touch nearly $900 going into the 19th.

A blow off top sure sure, and it was... back under $500 in 36 hours. It wouldn't go lower though, and another 10 days straight gains before finally running out of steam at the end of november at over $1200.

Now, Imagine a 4 year run up from $1000 to $560k and imagine the totally unlikely fractal based scenario of the same patterns playing out over that timescale.

The first year will be a steady climb, until around february of the second year where we will be at around $85k. Still holding? Good because by the end of feb its shot up to $101k and you are pretty happy right now!

The trick now is not to panic as by mid march you'll have seen the price drop right back down to $55k. Panic sold yet? I hope not, because over the next 12 are going to see a climb to $225k - if you have the balls to ride that train.

So we are mid march year 3 now, and over the next 3 weeks growth will suddenly accelerate, $393k in the fist quarter of april. You are smart, you'd sell here right. That would be a wise move because 60 days later the price has collapsed to $169k. You made bank though. Bitcoin is going nowhere now and you are sitting pretty. For the next year though you watch in dismay, as you set out of another 230% price rise. Bitcoin $560k, end of year 4.

Those huge swings over weeks and months will all but guarantee redistribution. Given the behaviour of people during the past 2 run ups, something of that magnitude, over that length of time will be absolutely unbearable.

The noise alone will shake people daily.

Thats what my OP is about. Its a note to self.

I agree, we need a lightning network. So that when it becomes uneconomical to transact on chain, there is a backup. What I don't agree with is that uneconomical should be forced. Let the free market decide. Give the miners the headroom to discover the most cost effective block size. The stepped approach in BIP101 goes someway towards it, but really the system should be self regulating. No cap.

Propogation, orphan rates etc are engineering issues that will be solved when its worth solving them. Free market.

Lightning network will be implemented when its worth doing so. Free market.

Capitalism works, Unbridled it fails. Bitcoin is the reigns.

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....



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.

This is the essence of antifragile, to be wrong day after day, at a small cost. When the day hits that you are right, thats when the payoff comes, because doesn't matter how many times you post #REKT that one black swan will erase all of them.