All slander aside sgbett I propose you read this article until your eyes bleed, then maybe, just maybe, you will see the light: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/Notice the phrase “pure P2P”. Bitcoin’s whitepaper never uses the word “decentralized”, instead favoring the term “peer-to-peer” (which is very easy to measure: “Is every pair of nodes ‘two peers’?” and/or “Does any node have a privileged status?”). Money is “knowing you’ve been paid”. When does “that knowing” occur more locally?
Experience vs. Persuasion
To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node.
The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.
It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”. |
|
|
|
Stupid, dumb, idiot, asshole, bastard, noob, fucker, Jesus Christ!
ROFL - this thread just gets funnier by the minute.
You'll have to excuse me these clowns have a particular ability to make my blood boil.. consider what I have to deal with: 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. That could be a problem then! |
|
|
|
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 problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin. Get back to your sandbox kiddo. The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant. No you dumb noob. The value of Bitcoin is that everyone can validate their own transactions so that we don't have to trust anyone to do it. Of course an idiot like you would believe that if you trust someone's else node somehow you are still a peer but let me break it to you: you aren't. Anytime you have to refer to authority to validate your transactions you no longer have sovereignty over your money. And that is what Bitcoin is about : monetary sovereignty. If you don't run a full node, you don't use Bitcoin as it was intended too : PURELY peer-to-peer False, you don't have to run a node to know and verify that the network is supposed to work as is. For anything else, there is an altcoin. Your understanding: it's broken. It's not about verifying that the network works as advertised but to VALIDATE YOURSELF every single transaction you are involved with. If you don't do that you depend on an authority to do so (an actual, true-to-form, peer in the Bitcoin network). If you depend on an authority then you are not using Bitcoin peer-to-peer. I know it might be hard to process for your 10 year old brain but that's just the way it is. |
|
|
|
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 problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin. Get back to your sandbox kiddo. The value of bitcoin is a decentralized P2P cash system. YOU not being able to run a node is irrelevant. No you dumb noob. The value of Bitcoin is that everyone can validate their own transactions so that we don't have to trust anyone to do it. Of course an idiot like you would believe that if you trust someone's else node somehow you are still a peer but let me break it to you: you aren't. Anytime you have to refer to authority to validate your transactions you no longer have sovereignty over your money. And that is what Bitcoin is about : monetary sovereignty. If you don't run a full node, you don't use Bitcoin as it was intended too : PURELY peer-to-peer |
|
|
|
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 Jesus christ you are stupid. So subsidizing transactions by increasing supply will keep average transaction fee constant. Got that... |
|
|
|
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 problem is you are too much of an imbecile to even begin to understand the value of Bitcoin. Get back to your sandbox kiddo. |
|
|
|
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 business range dedicated connections or in datacentres. I consider this a problem, XTard-in-chief Hearndresen thinks this is not a problem. Judgement call. "Too bad. No full node for you!" |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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. It's not about proving you wrong, it's trying to shine the light on how stupid your understanding of Bitcoin is. If you can't tell the difference between a few retarded miners forking to their own chain and a hard fork then I absolutely should insist on calling you 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? You can't be serious.... Do you know what a hard fork is? |
|
|
|
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? You are now confusing fees and subsidy? Are you sure you know how economics work? You are so simple. What are you? 15 years old? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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, 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. That's a rather interesting comment... Are you sure you know how Bitcoin works? |
|
|
|
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible. "Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption" Sacrificing you being able to run a node would not be a big loss TBH. Other than that monetary sovereignty still remains. Not a big loss, smh http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/To learn anything, you can either [1] check for yourself, or [2] trust the judgment of someone else. Trusting someone else implies a loss of local-ness. It definitely implies that P2P is lost: you are a subordinate taking the information from an authority. To preserve P2P, you’ll have to check everything yourself: run a full node. The requirement to run an entire full node may seem like a high bar, but the height is appropriate. With money, other people’s actions (counterfeiting) affect you. The only way for you to know you’ve been paid, is to make sure that every piece of data has followed every rule, and you can’t do that unless you have all of the data, and all of the rules, in front of you. That’s a full node.
It is also reasonable to require that this node start from scratch, for the very same reasons: to learn something, you either validate it yourself or trust an authority. Authorities are not “peers”. |
|
|
|
This Thread is the best.
(I'm a 1BTC supporter, I'll stop using Bitcoin the day I can no longer run a full node client.)
If bitcoin reaches that point it means the numbers of market participant outpace the number of people quitting because they can't run a node, which will be negligible. "Let's sacrifice monetary sovereignty for more adoption" |
|
|
|
 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  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 decentralized datacenters. FTFY For anything else, there is an altcoin. Decentralized datacenters  |
|
|
|
I'd imagine that if mining remained decentralized and the powers-that-be realized "it just ain't gonna" happen that they would be incentisized to keep full-nodes up and transfered their wealth into bitcoin at that point because they know their wealth would be preserved. If these incentivesized full nodes are running (as I translated Satoshi's message IMO) that's fine because we have powerful players supporting the nodes we know the network won't be "not" relaying/securing blocks for a long time. Everything hinges around mining decentralization. If this is possible then having full-nodes won't be a problem. And how many nodes does that represents exactly being fully decentralized? If 1000 nodes is enough, then can we consider 1M nodes to be unnecessary? No? Miner decentralization matters more than full-node decentralization. It takes half of the miners to become regulated to cause havok, while half of the full-nodes can be removed with no affect to the network. Agreed but how does the block size limit influence miners centralization if most miners rely on mining pools. block propagation delays with bigger blocks causing miners to tend towards using networks that offer no anonymity because Tor et all increase latency. That's just one thing it does. It also increases pool to pool header synchronization (centralization) to get a head start on mining next block. The first point is stronger because if miners can't remain anon then it can be subject to a regulation attack. (not to be confused with anonymous coin transfers) . It does effect the pools ability to be anonymous. However today there are no anonymous pools and I do not think this should be a necessary requirement for a sufficient degree of decentralization, since pools can be setup anywhere in the world and I do not think that the powers that be will be able to bring consistent regulation to bear in every jurisdiction in the world, which is what would be required to successfully censor or suppress Bitcoin under this model. It is important to make the distinction between mining centralization and pool centralization since they are in reality very different phenomena and we would be making a mistake to equate these two issues. Is false, it affects solo miners, not pool miners. Just like the US has jurisdiction of internet censorship across the world as long as it involves US in any way? (They can make up things along the way since it is not set in stone what constitutes involvement). The pool being just a service can be shut down but another one will start as long as the barrier of entry is relatively small. Increasing blocksize increases the barrier of entry for pools. So what you say is true only for pooled miners. But the effect of bigger blocks needs to be considered on how it affects pools ability to remain a viable business because of reduced security margins and having to compete with bigger pools effective monopoly (centralized mining). Although anonymity doesn't matter for pooled miners as much as solo miners, it will create centralization through creating pooling monopolies which will share header->header information and drive out smaller competitors. Also they are not validating blocks in that case either which is supposed to be ultimate priority of miners. If we have pool monopolies and regulation risks on solo miners we run the risk of losing decentralization of mining on the network. "I don't think so" |
|
|
|
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 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 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
