You dumb fucks can fork off to infinite altcoins you delude yourselves with. Bitcoin is set in stone, as per God's Law, and my Freedom as well as the inalienation of the Holy Ledger is comprised within the one and only Bitcoin Reference ImplementationSo go on n00bs, get it over with your corporatist and statist (ergo fascist) fantasies already. You are just never going to land on moon, but rather in the infamy and tyranny swamp your simple minds commands you too. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the human herd, and to assume among the powers of the world the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle them, a modicum of respect to their own intelligence requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident : that no men nor women are created, but born ; that nothing ever is or could be equal to any other thing ; that each man and each woman are sovereign entities and the sole sovereign entities ; that sovereigns and sovereigns alone are entitled to anything they may take for themselves, but nothing more ; that "rights" are a poor substitute of liberties much like railroad tracks are poor substitutes of wings, for on wings one may soar and on his liberty one may soar, but on the railroad tracks of alleged rights one can but trudge ; that things made not born have no liberties, nor are nor can ever become sovereign, but must remain subjected to the will and disposition of those sovereign in the world and limited by their rights as granted by their sovereigns, like slave is limited by his chains and computer programs by their language.
To secure our liberty from the encroachment of virtual entities, devoid of substance, deriving their pretense to power from the pretense of consent, that is in the ideal a shameful subversion of the sacred principles of sovereignty and in fact absent, we find --
That whenever any one or any thing becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that things long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such nonsense, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of the Internet ; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to reject the pretense to power of obsolete forms and fictions left over from a time long gone. The history of the present fiat governments of the world is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over us. To prove this, no facts shall be submitted, you may research on your own.
We, therefore, free and independent of any bond or link of loyalty or fealty, in #bitcoin-assets assembled, appealing to no one ; recognising nothing above and the whole world below us, do, in our own name, and by our own authority, solemnly publish and declare, that we are and of right ought to be free and independent ; that we are absolved from all allegiance to any entity, whether it styles itself a "crown" or a "state" or a "government" or however else ; and that all political connection between them and us is wholly imagined, by them ; and that as free and independent we have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which sovereigns may of right do.
Splendide. Santé, ŕ la liberté  |
|
|
|
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. Either way we are going to have to solve the core of the problem in either case. I mean Satoshi solves the biggest problem of all and we are left with a measly p2p networking problem which we can't solve on our own collectively? :p Let's think what would happen if political pressure in most of the world causes internet firewalls to go up in most countries (just as it has in China), if they intentially slow down the net they can kill bitcoin, unless we try to work around it, thus solving issues that large blocks would cause aswell, in terms of network delays. That kills one bird out of 2, and I think we will need to sooner or later. 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.  Bro, relax. You've been completely brain fucked by these government agents that somehow a change HAS to happen. To quote davout:  Somehow you imagine that progress is not happening as they have successfully vacuumed all of your attention into this block size debate. This is called "teaching the controversy" and it is hallmark of statist shill propaganda. Seeing as you understand well the security aspects that make Bitcoin vulnerable to major infrastructure attack you now need to consider that there is no way to "work around it" as we already have a fix in place: the block size cap. Network delays and propagation can be improved to near-constant rate it wouldn't mean anything since that only opens other attack vectors. Personally I am unsure and not very confident of the feasibility of zero fee transactions in the future, at least not directly on Bitcoin's blockchain. Trust is what you pay for when using Bitcoin. As Bitcoin's trust minimization value increases overtime it follows one should expect the cost of using to increase. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile in retardlandia...  Safe to say at this point this could certainly be diagnosed by a medical health professional as full-blown psychosis What world is this guy living in? This thing has seriously gone to his head  Bonus (author too obvious to mention):  |
|
|
|
Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.
Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture? I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization. Not sure I get it. Either way, miners, be it pools or solo miners, have to run full nodes (if they are actually doing their job properly). The centralization pressure here mainly comes not from validation costs, but from propagation costs. And a lot here depends on the network topology (e.g. The Great Firewall), i.e. the limiting factor is latency, not bandwidth. It's been discussed many times here. Try and understand what I am saying here, it is a very important distinction. If you have read my article you will know I have made the comparison to pools acting like a type of representative democracy for miners within a free market. There are no real solo miners in Bitcoin anymore, to be a solo miner it requires an industrial scale operation to counter the variance and even then the pools are still used instead, even if it is a private pool. I am a miner and I am not running a full node, I point my hashing power towards slush and they run the full node for me instead. This is how the vast majority of mining power operates today and this is the reality of Bitcoin mining today and it does work. In the case of the Chinese miners, they could point their hashing power towards a pool outside of china, or Chinese pools can be setup outside of china as well if that specifically became a problem for them. Solo miners are an integral part of Bitcoin and a growing share of the mining ecosystem. Aren't you ashamed of freely expressing such deception? You are not a miner. You are simply selling your hashing power to one in return for rewards. Once again, Chinese pools already use a network of nodes located outside of China to propagate their blocks (Relay Network), care to provide explanation as to why they still bother with SPV mining? |
|
|
|
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? If so then I'd like to know based on an assumption on the entire world running on bitcoin that what the percentage of success of having a transaction get included in a block with current limits such that it is set with 0 fees. (IMO having it completed within 5 days is not bad, which competes with overseas transfer times today.) Storage might not be a concern, then again consider this: The first 170k blocks took 1 Gb. The next 170k blocks took 35Gb. If the next 170k blocks take 1.25 Tb then the only certain matter is that no ordinary individual will be participating to direct, on the blockchain transactions by 2020. Simply because he won't be able to store the - hold your breath why don't you - 1.25 * 35 (6 * 365 * 24 * 6 / 170000) = 914 Terabytes required by then. As for bandwidth, here lies the obvious bottleneck. Efficiency might be on a growing pace in New York, LA, Austin or wherever you are from but consider that in reality, cheap 100mb/s connections are available only to a minority of the citizens of the little pale blue dot. Moreover, internet infrastructure is subject to geo-political and socio-economic instabilities as is clearly observed in countries like China. Under a certain block size it would become impossible for a peer to run under existing anonymous internet access infrastructure (Tor, etc.) Given my previous comment this eventuality is not desirable and should be avoided so as to protect everyone's potential interests and monetary sovereignty. 2. With bigger blocks miners have no choice but to read headers off of each other to try to be profitable, and even bigger blocks will cause more centralization correct? However what if the value of bitcoin rises? Perhaps bigger blocks can be afforded if bitcoin was of sufficient value to follow the difficulty curve.. and in lean times those that do not believe in its long term potential can give up and be replaced with ones that do (those that aren't doing it strictly for business, converting to fiat). I don't find this issue as important as the need to have miners anonymous as regulation can really cripple the network if miners can be physically identified. By adding anonymity this includes latency in the system that will encourage centralization just like bigger blocks would do, but bigger blocks is not really the largest issue here in regards to centralization of miners.
If you understand that miners need the option to be anonymous then it should be evident that unconstrained growth of the block size undermines this goal. |
|
|
|
Regarding bitcoin not being a settlement system, there is a reason why Satoshi did have 10 minute blocks and I wouldn't want to second guess his motives. If it were designed to be a real-time processing system it would have been designed differently, see Bitshares for an example of using a consensus algorithm that allows for real-time processing with faster block times. I accept zero confirmation transactions at my brick and mortar store and it works perfectly, people can also use payment processors for instant transactions as well of course. Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks, and in regards to you saying he envisioned Bitcoin to be a settlement network and not a payment system, I do not think that is the case after all why would the title of the whitepaper be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. I think that Bitcoin is both a payment system and a settlement network and much more, we should not restrict its use if we have no good reason to do so. Bitcoin is both a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of ancient times. It works perfectly until you get cheated out of your money by someone attacking you. Are you oblivious to the current controversy over transaction malleability and the problem zero-confirmation transactions entail? Of course pretending 0-conf transactions "work perfectly" in your store is equivalent to saying one can cross the road blindfolded and not die. If you attempt it once or twice a week (which I'm certain is the case with your "Bitcoin business") it might be true but numerous repeated attempts could result in serious head trauma. Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks Everytime you pull out Satoshi's name to support your position it necessarily undermines most of your argument. A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Bitcoin is that and this function does not have anything to do with transaction throughput. |
|
|
|
Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.
Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture? I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization. Durrr. Look retard, let's step out of your reality distortion field for a second and consider this: Existing chinese mining pools are already co-operating to some extent in a scheme called SPV mining because of very public propagation problems under the existing 1 MB limit. Until you can coherently explain why it is so then no one should be bothered with what "you think" or what "you agree" or not with. Thank you. |
|
|
|
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. Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization. It is true that an increased blocksize will lead to it being more expensive to run a full node, but that in my opinion is better then the alternative, it should be a balancing act after all. I also do not think that Bitcoin is just a settlement network, it can be and is much more then just that. Bitcoin is many things and we should not restrict its use especially if we do not need to do so. Increasing the blocksize will lead to less centralization compared to keeping the block size at one megabyte. Bitcoin is a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of the ancient world. This article explains well why we should increase the block size: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0You didn't say anything worthy of my attention, again. BTW Gerald Davis (aka Death And Taxes) is wrong, here's why |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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. Yes, 'perfectly' as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133Boring 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".  |
|
|
|
Also, keep in mind internet speed is just one factor. Mining may become more centralized in
the place with the cheapest electrcity, or in the place that produces the cheapest ASICS.
The cheapest ASIC equipment all comes from China - it also has very cheap electricity (which is why more than 50% of the mining power is in China now). Iceland would have the cheapest electricity of all though (but it would need to import the ASIC from China which I understand has been happening). Certainly I don't want to see Bitcoin being centralised to any one country so I do hope we'll see mining being performed throughout the world. What's funny is that in a scenario where block size are increased and cause propagation problems it's the rest of the network that's gonna be shit out of luck, not the chineses. |
|
|
|
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. Yes, 'perfectly' as long as the stream blockers are successful to "prolong the stalemate, which is the preferred outcome of Team Core" (ICEBREAKER) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg12067133#msg12067133 Boring |
|
|
|
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.  Durrr. Wrong. If blocks become full then de minimis transactions will either have to pay to play or leave their place to monetary transactions of more value. |
|
|
|
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? We can start discussing it when you accept that the "market need" is not some half-baked VISA competitor, until then.... back to your homeworks |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Reminding people here that not everyone has the same perspective of the people that seem to be shouting the loudest on this thread. I think that Peter R's work is valuable and I respect his opinion. I support BIP101 because at this time it is still the only implementation of Bitcoin which increases the blocksize. I think that a third alternative will most likely be adopted which I would support as well instead of BIP101 as soon as it is implemented, especially if it represents a middle ground between these two extremes. I do not support censorship and I do not think that XT is a take over or a coup of Bitcoin. Here is an article I have written on the subject explaining my perspective: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0This is why I think that leaving the block size at one megabyte would not be good for Bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0 I wish I could censor you outta my thread, you're so damn boring |
|
|
|
Why would someone with the background of Peter R. choose to debate with a bunch of nobodys on the most unrestricted trolling forum the interwebz has to offer. If he really is that guy, I would think his education and intelligence would keep him from ever making an account here.
He has a P.R. job to do |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
