The end game for bitcoin as a "currency on the internet", but its beginning as an institutionalized reserve currency.

People don't really care.  Most of the market cap comes from exchange IOU.  Not from transactions on the block chain.  And big players will always find an agreement with miners to get their essential transactions through.

You don't really see the power that miners get when normal transactions become impossible, do you.  Exchanges will of course "buy" (with fiat ?) room with big mining pools.  Big financial players will buy room on the chain.  To make it impossible for mere mortals to transact without them.  Most of bitcoin will become bitcoin IOU.  This is also what states like: no more anarchic bitcoining, but bitcoining through institutional players.  And miners are king, because they sell their precious space to the highest bidder in contracts ; not with fees. 

The politics IS part of the immutable dynamics.

My point is exactly that they can't, as long as we have a distributed, trustless system.  It can only happen, if there is sufficient centralization.  

Would you accept that suddenly, the block reward jumps to 500 coins because this suits miners ?  Do you really think this is possible by consensus ?


Of course they are "evil entities" like all of us.  All entities in a trustless system are to be considered as evil entities.  Otherwise, if they are to be trusted, the system is not trustless.

The point is, however, that there are *different ways* to increase the number of transactions, and that there will not be an agreement on which way, because that will influence the gains and the losses of some.  One will not come to an agreement, even if an agreement is beneficial.   There is no way to come to a consensus, as there will always be a sizeable fraction that doesn't want it that way but the other way.

You see it with segwit vs BU.  

In order for the concept of consensus to exist meaningfully, it must correspond to some phenomenon.  Like the concept of melting exists meaningfully by it indicating the phenomenon of a solid becoming liquid.  Next, one tries to *model* whatever goes on that makes the phenomenon happen.  One can be wrong ; only observation and logic are the judge.  But inventing names for thing that are not corresponding to a real phenomenon, is a useless activity.

So, defining "consensus" abstractly as what it *should* be ("people agreeing over what is best for bitcoin" or whatever) is a ridiculous exercise, because it puts an abstract idea that may, or may not be true, but doesn't necessarily correspond to a phenomenon that really occurs.

I define "consensus" as the observable phenomenon of the stability (or modification) of the common rules people adhere to within a crypto currency like bitcoin.  It is a fascinating observation that many people are using the same rules to make bitcoin what it is.  Especially that it has to do with individual advantages, one could think that the rules change every day, and that several people use several different rules, all in their advantage.... to make a big mess that doesn't work.  But no, all bitcoin actors obey the same rules, and those rules stay rather constant over time.  That *phenomenon* that is *really observable* is what I name "consensus".
One aspect is that all actors in the system respect the same rules (consensus), and the other aspect is that these rules don't seem to change (much) over time ("immutability").

Next, we try to model the dynamics of this phenomenon.  I sketched this before.  People come to a common set of rules that doesn't change, *because they cannot change it* and they are *obliged to agree*.  Not because they all find these rules in their greatest advantage.  On the contrary.  If I could change the block chain so that my expenses are reversed, that would be better for me.  If I could obtain more coinbase coins, that would be better for me.  So the rules, as I *have to agree on*, are not in my advantage at first sight. Changing these rules would be beneficial to me.  But I can't.  I have to stick to them.  I also will try to avoid that you turn back your transaction to me.  So I will not agree on YOU changing the rules either.  So you have to stick to them.  As such, we get a situation where any change that is in the advantage of one or the other, is disagreed over by sufficiently others, so that it can't happen.  

This dynamical model explains the immutability by consensus.  We all try to scam one another, and we all disagree to be scammed, which means that no modification of whatever brings you or me an advantage, can happen.  The only consensus is status quo: immutability.

As to "who am I" ?  I'm like Galileo showing the cardinals the moons of jupiter.  I'm doing science.

In the same way speculators erroneously conceived bitcoin as some viable alternative to fiat.  The whole of crypto is at this moment, a building of misconceptions upon misconceptions, and essentially a greater fool game, where there are a lot of fools, and hence, a lot of money to be made.

I would think that you can talk about a currency, even if it is not a world-wide accepted currency, from the moment that it is used as a currency, that is, as an intermediate asset between providing value, and obtaining value.  Otherwise, most small (?) countries' currencies wouldn't qualify as currencies.   The Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar wouldn't qualify as a currency, because I don't use it, I can't buy bread with it, etc...

In order to talk about a currency, you must be able to use it *in some circles* as a currency, and be able to exchange it for another currency if you "change circles".  You can do that by using a "backbone" currency (what you call a global reserve currency), but that is not necessary.  Currencies do not necessarily have to have a total order (you don't like that, do you) or hierarchy.  

Well, in the same way that it is not impossible that one decides to postpone the next halving, or to have blocks every 2 minutes.
BTW, that would be a much smarter solution: decreasing the block times.  10 minutes is awfully long.  Many newer coins have times of 1 or 2 minutes.  (note that this increases the amount of bitcoin in the end too if the block rewards remain...)

It becomes *more and more* difficult as fees rise and this parameter plays a bigger and bigger role in miner revenue.  It was 10 times easier to solve that issue one year ago than now.  Because the financial implications become more and more important every day.

No, the fee war is a symptom of immutability dynamics.  When an economic parameter is established (number of bitcoins, block reward, block time of 10 minutes, block size....), any way of trying to modify it will give rise to non-consensus, meaning, disputes over ways to do so.  It will look as if the antagonists in the dispute are "holding back progress", but the disputes themselves ARE the trustless distributed consensus mechanism at work, that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to change the parameter.

Look, I think that BU is not a bad solution (I don't know exactly how the consensus mechanism works, I've read there are big fuck ups there, but this can be solved).  Monero is a crypto that has such a dynamic block size adaptation.  So this kind of technology not only exists, it is active and it works.

But my point is that BU, or any other solution (like Segwit), WILL NOT BE ADOPTED by consensus.  Not because it is bad, but because of the immutability dynamics.  I'm not saying that this is "good".  I think that it *will be like that*, because some people involved will always find their profit from NOT changing the block size, and because different groups will see their advantage in different ways of solving this problem.  And for exactly the same reason that me wanting to reverse my transaction to you, and you wanting to reverse your transaction to me, none of us can, and the block chain is immutable because of that, there will never be a consensus on changing the finite block size.  The imaginable bitcoin that would have BU included would probably work better, but it will not happen, because that is not the real bitcoin, and the transition to BU will be against the advantages of enough people to avoid it.

Of course.  But only when that happens.  In other words, later.  In the mean time....

In fact, apart from code fuck ups , they have 4 times more room ; add 4 times more room in litecoin ; add the flexible block sizes of monero.... and crypto can still scale a 10-fold with these alt coins alone, before they hit similar problems as bitcoin.  And there are still many other alt coins.  And one can make a few forks....

So, right now, bitcoin is hitting its (own) wall.  But there's still a lot of room in alt coins for block chain coins to live a bit longer.

  Love it !

You have a misunderstanding about the notion "scale".   You confuse it with "is currently not within reach of technology".
In any case, bitcoin cannot scale, because it limited itself, independent of the scaling problem of single block chain technology.

The scaling problem a block chain faces, is that for "n" participants, over time T, it needs to store/process/.... ~n^2 T data.
If we presume that transactions per entity rise with the number of potential partners they have on the network and that ALL nodes need to process ALL transactions of ALL participants over ALL of history.   This runs into technical limits at a certain point.  

But bitcoin put itself a much, much more severe and hard limit: 3 transactions per second.  Making transactions themselves an expensive resource.

Then who got the 2 million DASH mined with the buggy code in 48 hours ?

https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/display/OC/Dash+Instamine+Issue+Clarification


As to "many people were mining at that moment" is doubtful:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg4596809#msg4596809

Someone got it.

However, between "cannot scale" because of technological limitations, and "cannot scale" because frozen into the protocol for ever, there's still some room

Bitcoin is frozen in far before the technological (and moving) limits are reached.

The idea is indeed, that the only agreement over change that can happen, is an agreement over something technical that doesn't involve any gains or losses for anyone.  From the moment that some gain, and others lose (which is always, by definition, the case if one changes an economic parameter), there cannot be agreement, and hence no consensus.

This is why I say that this lack of consensus over those things that make some gain, and others lose, implies their immutability.

And as the block size is now an economic parameter determining the fee market, I consider that immutability is at work when one sees the never-ending quarrels over different ways of modifying it, and why I'm seriously convinced that it will not change, OR FORK.

As I said, defining a non-existent phenomenon has no meaning.  I'm just using a word to designate a phenomenon.  Like melting.  Melting is an observable phenomenon ; if you use the word "melting" for some theoretical construct that doesn't happen, that's meaningless, and even if I'm the only guy using the word to indicate the actually happening phenomenon, I'm the only one using it correctly. 

But I'm not even disagreeing with what others say.  Of course, consensus is "that what most of the participants agree upon".  Sure.  But that is not what is interesting about distributed trustless consensus.  What is interesting about it, is that there is a dynamical description that explains the immutability aspect of this "agreement", namely the fact that many diverse agents want to impose changes that suit them, and are unable to come to an agreement over that, so the old rules prevail.

It is amazing that people are so stubborn that they are discussing over how this is wrong, while they have exactly the example under their noses.  This is like Galilei showing the 4 moons of Jupiter with his telescope to the representatives of the church, who refused to see them.

Where does immutability come from in distributed trustless environments, and how is this kind of consensus different from the "computer science consensus" ?  Contrary to "computer science consensus", there is no "neutrality" in the nodes.  In the computer science consensus, there are "honest nodes" trying to establish a pre-defined protocol, and there may be some faulty or malicious.  But most are presumed to "try to be honest".  This is different in a trustless environment of course.  All nodes try to scam all others.  If I use bitcoin, and I pay someone, of course, I would like to reverse my transaction after a while.  Once I get the goods or services I paid for, of course I would like to "erase" my transaction from the block chain, to be able to double spend.  All bitcoin participants are supposed to want to double spend, to modify transaction history, to make fake transactions in their name, and to get fake mined bitcoins.   Nobody is to be trusted, and nobody is "trying to be honest".  Everyone tries to scam everyone.  That's the basic idea of a trustless environment.

However, in as much as I try to erase my transaction to you from the block chain, you want to keep it of course.   I could collude with some others to redo the block containing my transactions, but I won't find enough people agreeing on that.  I would like to make a false block giving me the coinbase reward, but others will not agree.  So, no matter how much I would like to scam others, I won't be able to, because what I want to do in my advantage, is not in the advantage of others, and we can't agree over that.  So we end up agreeing over the "honest" rules.  Not because I'm an honest node (I'm not), not because you are a honest node (you're not), but because there's nothing else we can agree upon.  You do not agree upon my scam, I do not agree upon your scam, and so we have no choice but to agree upon the honest blocks.  That's why there is never agreement on redoing the block chain, and why it becomes immutable.  I cannot make miners agree upon my scam.  You cannot make miners agree upon your scam.  So we end up, even if we both want to, not to scam one another.  But nobody is trying to be honest.  We are CONSTRAINED to be "honest" (that is, follow the original rules).   We are FORCED to agree upon the honest history.  That forced agreement is the emerging consensus, and is immutability.
This differs from the "computer science" consensus where honest nodes have no "gains" and do not try to scam other nodes, but just try to find the "right" data.  In computer science, one has "distributed consensus".  But not trustless (that is, everyone has an advantage in trying to be dishonest, but there is no collusion possible over this).


My analogy is not so bad.  In a market too, everyone tries to get his advantage.  If you sell apples, I would like to buy them for an extremely low price.  You would like to sell them for an extremely high price.  None of us can obtain what one wants (and scam the other one).  So we agree upon a price none of us actually wanted, but is the "honest" one.

We see that the immutability doesn't work, when the parameter is entirely neutral, and nobody can use that parameter to obtain an advantage over someone else.   This is why the normal word "consensus" (common agreement) is applicable for all those changes that do not imply any advantage of one node over another one.  And this is why early modifications to the protocol were possible, as they were not subject to the "I try to scam you, you try to scam me, but the only thing we can agree upon, is to remain, against our wishes, honest, that is, follow the established rules".

This is why immutability didn't stop people change the block size when this didn't affect anyone.  And why NOW, as it is affecting people and giving them advantage or disadvantage (when it becomes an economic parameter) it becomes immutable.

I'm writing this as someone who studies the dynamical phenomena of this kind of system.  Not as someone who has any interest in it.  I find the phenomena happening in bitcoin, as dynamical phenomena of systems, pretty fascinating, and I'm just sharing my observations with you, especially in these times when those dynamical phenomena have "unexpected" (to those who don't understand them) effects.

I'm telling you, the block size will not change, and segwit will not happen if my understanding of the immutability dynamics is correct.  The only thing I see eventually happening (but far from sure), is a hard fork with two coins emerging when the tension is too large.

And honestly, the facts are in my favour.  If it could have been changed, it would have been, since a long time.
Now, you go and take your own definitions of consensus and whatever, and see if your theoretical model fits as well the observations as mine.   You take your Ptolemaic astronomy, and see if it fits the observations. 

My description, as of this day, does: no economic parameter can be changed.

Now calm down, and read what I wrote.  If you understand bitcoin, you will agree.  
Yes, consensus is everyone disagreeing on changing the rules in a given direction.  That's what maintains the rule set in a trustless environment.  If you didn't understand that essential given, you do not understand distributed trustless environments and hence, you do not understand bitcoin.

It is an emerging phenomenon in these systems. 

Why do we "classify" crypto by market cap ?  Because we somehow think this is a gross measure of the "value pool" of the thing ; in other words, if new economic entities were to "take over" the entire thing, that's more or less what they would pay for it.  So that's "what it is worth".  It also means that if you possess, say, 1/10 of the system, that you will be able to obtain grossly, 1/10 of the market cap if you sell it over a period of a few weeks or months.  (yes, the market will lower a bit, but if it is sufficiently liquid, it will absorb it).

Well, this is not true with DASH.  If you own 1/10 of the DASH stash, you won't be able to sell it for 1/10 of the market cap.  You will simply crash the market.  Because the integrated demand, even over months, is not that big.

Consensus is not a pre-defined term, it is a dynamically emerging phenomenon.   Like the term "melting".  Melting happens, when a physical solid, which gets its solidity from the molecular interactions that "keep molecules on average in place", transitions to a liquid, where the same forces are not able any more to keep them in place, but can still keep them "at short range".  Evaporation occurs when these forces are even not able any more to keep them in place.

As such, "melting" and "evaporating" are emergent properties of the fact that there are inter-molecular forces, and that there are thermal movements.  There's no point in defining abstractly what you would consider "melting".  It is a phenomenon that occurs, and you give it a name.  The dynamical model of the physics behind it EXPLAINS the phenomenon.  But inventing a name for another phenomenon that doesn't happen, is meaningless.

As such, "consensus" is the name one gives to the fact that in a trustless, distributed system, the initially set out rules remain valid, and the recorded history is not modified.  But up to what point ?   What is the *dynamical model* that is supposed to EXPLAIN this consensus phenomenon ?

The dynamical model is that there are sufficiently diverse and numerous actors in the system, each of which *would like to modify the rules to suit his wishes and advantages* that they cannot come to an agreement over WHAT changes should apply.  As such, the ONLY thing they can agree on, is to keep the rules as they are, to keep the history as it is.  This was the original motivation to even launch a trustless, distributed system that would nevertheless impose the respect of its rules (which is necessary to induce a monetary belief system in the first place: if the rules can change every day, nobody is going to believe in the monetary value).  So "consensus" is the name of this phenomenon.  It cannot be defined more accurately than the knowledge we have of the phenomenon, and there's no use in defining it otherwise, because any *other* definition is naming a non-existent phenomenon.  Like you better define "melting" as what really happens when a solid melts.

Given the initial model of consensus, which seems to describe quite accurately what it has done until now, I *presume* that it will act similarly on the block size.  When I look at what the dynamical model we have of the consensus phenomenon TELLS US, and what we *observe*, then both are marvellously in agreement up to now: several different actors who want to modify the rules, cannot find agreement, because it goes against their own advantages, and so the old rules remain in place.   This is an almost perfect illustration of the expected dynamics of the consensus phenomenon that keeps old rules in place.


There is no "preference" to have.  The dynamics is what it will be.  Your question is like "do you prefer a high or a low oil market price ?".  There will be an oil market price, emerging from offer and demand.  There's not to be decided "what it should be".