 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
The information density on this forum is way better compared to the new one. Their new layout is too sparse to be useful. This place has a softer color scheme, appropriate "balancing simple machine" logo and a tried and tested familiar interface. When it comes to discussing Bitcoin this place just feels home!  |
|
|
|
I was just pointing out that this is the original vision of Bitcoin, not increasing the block size is actually the change, in order to keep Bitcoin the same we must change it. I do think that we should stick with the fundamental original vision of Bitcoin. I also think that if we do want to fundamentally change Bitcoin then this is best done within an altcoin. Since this would not betray the original social contract of Bitcoin. We should embrace alternative cryptocurrencies as an extension of the concept of voluntarism. I do think that for the people here that are preaching one megabyte blocks forever, it would be better if they adopt an altcoin instead since that would create less conflict and division as opposed to trying to force your beliefs onto Bitcoin, which I do think some of the Core developers are presently doing. Bitcoin is peer to peer digital cash. Bitcoin is also a commodity and a currency. Bitcoin is trust without decentralized authority which can be applied to many different applications. I do not agree with the concept of restricting Bitcoin to just one of these use cases. Bitcoin can and should do all of these things, especially when there is no good reason to restrict its use. I want decentralization and financial freedom as well you know, please keep that in mind, most of us are and should be on the same side, we are all Bitcoiners together and we share these principles in common at least. Of course, we are all in this together! I like the idea of altcoins better than changing the current front-runners without the overwhelming understanding and consensus among many users. The fact that we are arguing about how to proceed and what directions to take means that we don't really know what we are doing. The longer we keep the rules the more we can learn about the system in its different modes of operation and the more data we can collect about the way competitors react to the increasing pressure. The change will be simple when the target is clear, but for now the Core remains beautiful.  |
|
|
|
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."
As I have already responded to sgbett in a similar way, I will say it again that Satoshi didn't put a timeline on that particular configuration. We can likely start aiming in that direction once democratically elected governments are no longer in debt to "the big block institutions" and the global internet infrastructure doesn't run the risk of being censored with regards to Bitcoin's increased traffic. |
|
|
|
Having fewer peers =! being centralized.
What's the point of keeping bitcoin crippled for a niche market? There are plenty of altcoins for this exact purpose. Bitcoin's destiny is world domination, for anything else there is an altcoin and everyone is happy.
We should be careful with that one. You need to ask yourself then "Who is going to dominate Bitcoin?" Would that be a "big block institution" or a simple and robust framework of transparent monetary rules enforced by the majority of Bitcoin users? The latter seems more in line with Bitcoin's true purpose. |
|
|
|
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. What Satoshi didn't say was at which point it would be appropriate to move to that configuration. |
|
|
|
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.
The definition itself is a bit contradictory. I guess, Satoshi gave us a puzzle rather than a solution. Not that every user should be running a node, but enough users should be able to run one. |
|
|
|
I know that my home connection is considerably slower just from the node I run, as is.
If your node is slowing down your internet connection you could limit the number of connections, or throttle the network usage. Both of which are harmful for the propagation of the network. Then get yourself a better internet connection which will be good for the propagation of the network. I have the best domestic connection you can get in the area (London, UK), and I've tried several providers. To get a better connection, I'd need a business range one. 1MB blocks mean total bandwidths over 150GB per month under normal configurations, and long saturation peaks. You don't seem to understand the problem, or you are disingenuous and pretending you don't. The problem is that many people would not be able to run such connections and full nodes would be just in decentralized business range dedicated connections or in decentralized datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call. FTFY What's the problem again? The trend! The biggest challenge for Bitcoin is not how to find the right balance between the decentralization and efficiency, but rather how to stop there and keep it sustainable over the long term. If there is no resistance to blockchain bloat, then it simply becomes another attack vector for the network. |
|
|
|
Regarding the idea of Bitcoin driven by "the market", we need to understand one important aspect of the current setup. For as long as there are active players in the global arena with the ability to print banknotes at their own discretion (we might as well call them "the big block institutions"), the notion that "the market" will decide what is best for Bitcoin basically translates to the question: "Hey, bitcoiners, how much for your Core values?". "Not for sale" seems to be the answer. The fact that we are seeing so much resistance to premature block size increase (which in turn comes with a risk of setting up a precedent and a trend for eventual centralization) is perfectly in line with the reason Bitcoin was created in the first place, namely to serve as a counter-balance to those same institutions that are now actively promoting the increase. If Bitcoin takes on that path it may at some point begin contradicting itself and lose the trust it has gained so far. So, when entertaining the idea of the market-driven hypothesis, one mustn't easily discount the ideological weight of Bitcoin as a counter-measure to present day fiat and the value it derives from it. Changing the rules of the game must be the last resort option considered only when another similar system gains enough momentum and provides competitive characteristics servicing the same market. The path to The Future of Bitcoin is through people's Goodwill. |
|
|
|
Just found this on Adam's twitter account:   Ok, I'm kidding...  |
|
|
|
I would like to reiterate on the following two points that I consider important. 1) Bitcoin needs to demonstrate that consensus rules are fairly rigid and can hold on their own long enough despite internal pressures. If the rules are easy to change then instead of playing all the same game everyone will begin bending the playing field in their favor. The term "stagnaters" when applied to the rigid framework of long-term consensus is actually a positive thing for Bitcoin. Innovation and development needs to happen within that framework, but not to the framework itself. Only when the rules become significantly out of balance and lag far enough behind the technological advancements curve, the whole ecosystem would feel the need to adjust and re-balance. 2) If blockchain validation costs can only rise over the long term, at which point and who is going to stop this trend? Static limit on block size is the only measure that can prevent this trend from accelerating (as it has been over the last few years), but only if it becomes effective and stays active long enough to let the technology progress, while the network bandwidth target remains limited. If this long-term trend cannot be controlled and sustained, then one of the key components of the original core value proposition, namely open and accessible blockchain, will be lost. At that point the benefits of transacting on the blockchain will be nullified. Who and how is going to maintain its integrity? Who is going to let the transactions in and allow for inspections? Trends in decentralized systems are important and need to be analyzed very carefully before any decision to change the consensus rules can be made. Bitcoin will have to adjust at certain rare and discreet moments only when absolutely necessary in order to Keep Up With The Times.  |
|
|
|
I barely have the heart to tell Zarasstua I intentionally used Cunningham's Law to get him to provide the actual lulzy figure, so we could proceed to make fun of it! Compare the discussions of the 200+ there ... https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-56#post-2078... with the childish behavior of the small blockers here in this thread. You can't have the same level in a discussion if a thread is full of 'censorship cheerleaders', 'consensus communists', 'childish picture and meme posters', 'competition haters', 'faked nodes and DDoS enthusiasts', vulgar poets and alikes. That this minority will get big blocks next year and beeing forked off the game if they'll be stupid enough to clamp on funny small block implementations, should be crystal clear. Shouln'd it? That's the difference between lifeless simulated "spherical cow" reality and the real world! We are (Space)Block-1(MB) and We Brake For Nobody!  While little people went shopping elsewhere, The Core remains strong and the rest is just Solar Wind.  |
|
|
|
There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."
But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Someone against XT could make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.
But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
Are you sure that Peter Rizun is just incapable of thinking rationally? You're alluding to the implausibility of that notion when you concede that you cannot understand Peter's motivation for using misleading graphics or fantasy mathematics. This thread moves too fast for people like me. My impression is that Peter R is approaching this like a political campaign of sorts. He develops some talking points and then repeats them over and over. He tends to write a paragraph supporting the current talking point (and in the latest case a gif) and then cuts and pastes that paragraph into responses on different forums. The responses may have some other texts before and/or after the cut and paste. Obviously it's difficult to have a dialogue when one party is approaching the conversation this way. It's possible he wants to be a politician and this is him practicing in a small community. I mentioned Peter R being in the "denial stage" as an offhand comment. Now that I've looked it up the stages of grief it might fit what we're seeing from XT supporters. In this thread, along with many others, there's been no shortage of "anger." The new "goal" of just wanting there to be competing implementations seems to fit the "bargaining" stage. After seeing Peter R's animated gif (where XT temporarily gets ahead of Core) I must admit that his P.R. skills have definitely Rizun, something that Mike couldn't have possibly Hearn, but don't worry we will get through this, now that Adam is Back! This thread reminds me of the Monty Python's Flying Circus Argument Clinic, where we have gone through "a whole lot of abuse", "lengthy arguments with contradictions", "plenty of complaints", "beating over the head lessons" and subsequent "moderating and censorship". Flying Circus it is!   Hope everyone enjoyed the ride!  |
|
|
|
Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.
Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective. We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By. |
|
|
|
Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?
Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?
Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?
The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion): 1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node) 2. Mining centralization. 1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct? The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion. The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year. |
|
|
|
It's disturbing to see one man capable of such consistent and immovable sophistry. He's very talented in that department. Wouldn't be surprised if Peter & Mike privately pitched each other propaganda material & ideas.. Truly a disturbing merry bunch of sociopaths Whining nobodies. I think, you're being too critical about Peter & Mike. |
|
|
|
I agree. Bitcoin will remain boring as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core".
Bitcoin will remain sustainable to survive long enough and be heard of from the Echoes Of Time.  |
|
|
|
The whole idea of transacting on blockchain is to keep it open, transparent and accessible. Without necessary measures (like block size limit) intended to prevent it from bloating, sinking and eventually getting locked in those large data-centers, Bitcoin won't be any more attractive than today's fiat. As it stands now, Bitcoin does deliver as advertised.
If the blocks became consistently full Bitcoin will not work as advertised. I do know that we are on the same page in regards to this point at least. Why not? There is nothing in Bitcoin advertisements about blocks being half-empty!  Riding blockchain without the block-size-limit is like driving an automobile without brakes. |
|
|
|
Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.
I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again. As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there. Sure, let's see you on the other side  Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again. Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs? You prick, bitcoin delivers perfectly and fits its market marvelously. Again, holding the private keys is the only thing that really matters for authentic bitcoiners. If you count "private" access to blockchain among those "keys", then yeah, it's all that matters! |
|
|
|
Don't worry that's going to happen when the economic incentives will get there as blocks will be filled out. At that point bitcoin core will be left out in the dust, there is absolutely no doubt about this.
I'm quoting this for postery. Can't wait to pull it out of my bag again, and again, and again. As you which but I won't have any merit on this prediction as it is just 5th grader economics 101 class so there is nothing really impressive there. Sure, let's see you on the other side Although knowing how little honor you shills have I wouldn't be surprised if you don't show your face here ever again. Huh? What is honourable about using a system that doesn't deliver and does't fits the market needs? The whole idea of transacting on blockchain is to keep it open, transparent and accessible. Without necessary measures (like block size limit) intended to prevent it from bloating, sinking and eventually getting locked in those large data-centers, Bitcoin won't be any more attractive than today's fiat. As it stands now, Bitcoin does deliver as advertised. |
|
|
|
The clowns you refer too are the ones actually working on Bitcoin development which make them more relevant than Peter could ever hope to be. The clowns I refer to are you and alikes. Gavin (the lead developer before core got compromised) was one of them who made Bitcoin relevant. At the moment core is compromised and hijacked by stagnators. It won't last. They'll be forced to deliver bigger blocks or to become irrelevant.By whom? By market participants that want and need bigger blocks and don't give so much interest anymore about Core implementation. 'Cause they're Unforgiven II |
|
|
|
|
