Again, I'm for an increase to the limit, and I think miners acting rationally would be too. They would do it because of their own self interest though, not because a poll of reddit users wanted them to.
Are you sure miners acting rationally wouldn't consider the block limit as 1 dimension of the potential way to increase transaction capacity? The real question isn't "how/when/to what do we increase the block size", it's "how do we increase transaction capacity in a way that maintains a healthy market for hashes". Anything that centralises towards the miners, or amongst the miners, is bad for the eco system as a whole. BIP 101 would create a trend toward both. Miners create the blocks, so I'm not sure what decentralizing away from miners would even mean. If you mean that smaller miners are dependent on, or even supported by, 1MB blocks, I disagree. It may even be the opposite, smaller mining operations may have access to better bandwidth and speed vs remote industrial mining farms in rural china. Economies of scale encourage, especially since the arrival of ASICs, the relative centralization of mining. This was not a surprise and was predicted from the very beginning. IMO maxblocksize has almost nothing to do with it. What a great point. The 5 largest miners in the world already told us they're trapped behinf the GFC with inferior connectivity speeds. And yes, we have to assume the relay network is factored into that statement. It may turn out that a small miner could do the large block better connectivity attack Wiulle was going on about on reddit because of a direct connection to the relay network that causes the Chinese miners to choke. |
|
|
|
Many Core developers are risk adverse, it's their way or the highway as they are the gate keepers, they are also the ones who would have to fix any problems so they feel they are better equipped to make this decision. - problem is this has highlighted a conflict in development and that is central controlled policy makers decided for us which brigs into question the whole idea that Bitcoin is decentralized.
In my view If anything we should be planning for Bitcoin growth and working on ways to prevent the existing mechanism from abuse.
Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for. I've got no problem with this. Its nice that most of the value BTC holders have may be preserved. But its pretty disingenuous to deliberately hamstring Bitcoin thereby forcing users into their solution. And if ppl do move to blockstream "sponsored" chains I question the legal/political ramifications of blockchains that have a big corporate target to aim at for censorship, identity tracking ,etc. I've been meaning to mention this scenario. Big corporate consults with Blockstream to construct a proprietary corporate SC with a significant innovation that Bitcoin proper definitely would want to incorporate. Before any of this success is known to the market, corporate forces Blockstream to sign a non-compete. With Bitcoin Core still controlled by these devs, said innovation can't get back ported to Bitcoin Core because it continually gets blocked by non consensus. A hard fork introduced by anonymous dev can't get off the ground for the same reasons XT might not get off the ground. What then? |
|
|
|
Great to here that. Hope you mean it.
But you're ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again?
I am for an increase, sooner the better. Not sure how I can say this more clearly. I just don't think that the maxblocksize argument alters the incentives in the mining game, yet. I think you are getting too used to having people badger you in this thread these days. You're starting to see enemies when they are friends.  I don't see you as an enemy. I just acknowledged that it is great you want an increase. I simply asked you why we should ignore, right now, a vast majority of the community who wants to see an increase built in now so that we can be ready come January? |
|
|
|
To any mining pool operators out there reading,
next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.
Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others. You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today? Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice. And if it doesn't rise, what's your long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income? Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period. Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out? BTW, I'm FOR lifting the blocksize to at least 8MB, preferably higher, and with built in scaling. I just don't think relationship between the two issues is all that important, at least before this upcoming halving, and maybe the one after that. Great to here that. Hope you mean it. But you're ignoring the fact that a vast majority of the community does want an increase now. So why should we just go with your opinion again? |
|
|
|
To any mining pool operators out there reading,
next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.
Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others. You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today? Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice. And if it doesn't rise, what's your long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income? Just like 2012, unprofitable miners drop off, difficulty falls, BTC income per TH rises. Of course tx volume needs to rise greatly and create a larger fee incentive eventually, but I don't think the time preceding the drop to 12.5 is that period. Why should we trust your assessment of what the proper time period is? Why not lift the limit entirely and let the market figure it out? |
|
|
|
To any mining pool operators out there reading,
next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.
Are you doing ok cypher? You seem to be increasingly hyperbolic and desperate in your comments. This one in particular is exceedingly misleading and smells like a blatant attempt to use unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to make your case and influence others. You do of course realize that if the price were to rise to 500 by next July their income will remain precisely the same as it is today? Luckily, I'm sure the miners understand the economics of mining well enough that they will not be taking your misguided advice. And if it doesn't rise, what's your long term plan for miners to supplement the lost block reward income? |
|
|
|
|
To any mining pool operators out there reading,
next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving. you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term. offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you. what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.
you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits. not a sustainable situation.
|
|
|
|
I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character.
So why did he allegedly (court deposition I read, and he refused to provide a link to his rebuttal deposition) take 10% of every HashFast vaporware sold (whether he promoted that referral or not) and promote it here on the forum? How can that company be sure he is doing all the referrals if it was not obviously intended to be vaporware. Obviously they all knew what they were doing. How could someone with good character swindle people? He says he can't comment on the case, but he could I assume provided a link to his public deposition so we can hear his side of the case. I don't like people prying into my private life, which why I would not try to use my reputation to sell something (including an altcoin). I don't understand why a successful eye doctor would jeopardize his privacy. go here, register, then read my Declaration and Responses if you want: https://www.pacer.gov/ |
|
|
|
I'll still vouch for Frap.doc's character. His premises, analysis, and conclusions are flawed but his heart is in the right place.  i thank you for this iCE. deep down we are still brothers with a similar vision. we just vehemently disagree who to follow to get there. i still think i'm right. |
|
|
|
tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?
i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point. the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.
get with the character assassinations you thugs.
Not to give an opinion on the merit of the above posters, but have you weighed the benefits of page position versus the harm to the signal-to-noise ratio from continual acrimonious/low-content bickering? Even the harm to the reputation of this thread as the easiest place to quickly (i.e., without having to sort through many pages of noise) get abreast of the actually important happenings and debates in the space? Due to the existing quality the good name of the thread will only grow, pushing it ever high on the page, even without all the noise. The noise certainly helps keep the thread near the top but at the cost of threatening to ruin the main selling point of the thread. interesting points. no, i haven't done anything formal but i do know that the popularity is growing. for instance, at the end of February 2015 the view count was approximately 800K. four months later we're here at 1.2M. and i'm very sure of that as i made a mental note at the time for a particular reason. so 400K equals 3333 views per day or 2.31 views per minute. the previous mental check, which is much more fuzzy cuz i was only roughly keeping track was from Oct 2014 to Feb 2015 when i believe the starting pt was at 400K very roughly. i remember that time especially well b/c that was precisely when the SC WP came out and brg444 entered the thread. all of you must remember him and how he spammed the heck out of me just like the current guys. i even remember complimenting him on driving the view rate so high so fast single handedly. so overall the growth rate was roughly the same from Oct to now or 100K/mo. the significant metric though is how it took from the beginning of the thread, which was March 13, 2012 all the way to Oct 2014 for it to go to 400K. the last 8 mo the thread has grown by 200% alone. in other words, the recent pace of the last 8 months has been increasing at a torrid rate. |
|
|
|
|
tvbcof, TPTB, iCEBlow, MOA, kazukiPIMP?
i know they gotcha on Ignore but that's beside the point. the point is for you to help me generate even more views and keep the thread front and center so more and moar ppl can view the poll results and so you can reinforce my importance and this thread to the community.
get with the character assassinations you thugs.
|
|
|
|
blocks are filling up b/c of the buying going on. who here wants to be stuck with unconfirmed tx buy pressure b/c of the fricking 1MB'ers? |
|
|
|
|
character assassins please step up.
you're letting the thread fall too low.
|
|
|
|
BTW, cypherdoc begs for it. Classic masochistic tendencies.
there's some truth to this. but there are several good reasons for it: 1. i think i'm right 2. i have a clear unconflicted conscience as my sole disclaimer is i own some coins 3. having a lucrative career in a non tech arena, i have no desire or need to find employment or any association whatsoever with any cryptocurrency company. thus my sole participation in Bitcoin is on these forums and is purely focused on what i think is right or necessary for the good of Bitcoin. i don't even go to conferences except for the San Jose one from 2 yrs ago. 4. having grown up in a relatively disadvantaged manner with other like kids, i have learned to be thrifty, not take anything for granted, and fight for what i want and believe in, not only academically but physically. i have a strong desire to advocate and protect the disadvantaged. 5. through my own intellect and work ethos, i managed to get into a very well respected, well compensated profession in which i am able to do real good to and for ppl. ppl trust me to operate on their eyes for God's sake. i have saved literally thousands of ppl from blindness. both here and on volunteer trips in foreign countries. God has blessed me in more ways than i can count. ppl come up to me to this day who i've not seen for over 22 yrs and say thank you for saving my vision and say things like i'll never forget you. thus, i have seen the good in ppl and it brings out the same in me. i pity ppl like iCEBlow, tvbcof, MOA, and TPTB b/c if i had to guess, they've been abused by their fathers in childhood. when i listen to them i hear fear, anger, disdain, mistrust. they only see the negatives in ppl and their surroundings. what a miserable bunch of cuss they are. 6. these types of blessings give me clear conviction to advocate for what i think is best for Bitcoin, and not for my pocketbook. yes, Bitcoin could go to zero and it wouldn't effect me in a detrimental way. at_all. all these things make me vomit when i see ppl like iCEBLOW, tvbcof, MOA, & TPTB try to distort the truth and act like thugs.i think they're bloviating bullies the kind i used to fight on the playgrounds. i don't mind doing it as i have nothing to lose. they pick on Gavin in the same way who is too mature to engage these pricks. so yeah, i'll step up and do it for him. i don't mind. i have nothing to lose. i believe Bitcoin needs to dissect the cancer that is Blockstream from the core dev team. the financial conflicts are too great. Mike & Gavin can't possibly be any less financially conflicted in their recommendations. their refusal to even give a counter proposal to Gavin, despite them hedging that they all want a block size increase, is disingenuous at best. saying that while doing nothing is equivalent to flat out opposition afaic. Bitcoin is a public good. if they were mature, honest individuals, all 9 of those core devs involved in BS would step down out of self respect and the desire to avoid controversy. but no, that is not the level of integrity we have in core dev. that's sad to me. so it won't stop me from talking about it no matter how badly they attack me. the attacks on me and this thread are actually testimony to just how successfully and highly thought of i am in their eyes. i see right through their bullshit and take all the criticism as the ultimate tribute as to what i have achieved here. their only option is to resort to character assassination. they need to fill this thread up as much as possible with disinformation to distract from my message and smear my reputation in their desperation to co-opt Bitcoin. i think it's laughable b/c what i've learned over the years is that there are lots of good ppl here on the forum whom i respect and admire. they will see right through the bullshit. b/c fundamentally i believe most ppl are good and want to do the right thing, i believe they will see what these guys are up to. these thugs fundamentally disrespect all of you; they don't think you have the intelligence to discern. it is also why Bitcoin is destined to succeed b/c their are more good ppl in the world who will hold the evil ones to task in the up and coming transparent open source and technological age. i also welcome all the posts these guys make as it drives up this thread to the top of the forum where every can see the poll results and also listen to my message. they are playing right into my hands. |
|
|
|
Read the above long-winded, contentless, screed of cold leftovers if you like. Or skim. I'll be a good guy and break down the real issue right here: Today's implementation of mining is like having a tin can tied to a horse's tail. The fast the horse runs, the faster the can follows. We've currently got about 6 miners (or horses so-to-speak) that make any real difference. The main trouble with this is that each of the horses is going to hit the profitability break-even cliff at roughly the same time due to similar economics (though geo-politics could intercede.) At that point there will be large chunks of sha256 power available since it's pointless to mine Bitcoin with it...at least for economic reasons. The alternative is to try to match endless inflation against profitability not unlike how debt-based fiat systems work. Bitcoin has so many sources of volatility that this would be a tough row to hoe even if it were (stupidly) chosen as a strategy. Note that the economics of mining under our current paradigm are not even effected by block-size/fee-structure arguments. That's a separate issue. I don't even have to read his article yet to see that you don't have the faintest clue how bitcoin works. That's always been the case though. |
|
|
|
|
whoops, $DJT going negative again.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
