hazek, I had your notion of "sovereignty" from this thread in mind when I wrote this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.msg1545885#msg1545885It appears to be achievable with an SPV client to a similar degree that most people currently achieve it with a fully validating client. I don't see any reason why even smart phone clients can't be "sovereign", at least practically speaking. Great. Like I said I don't care how it's done, just that it is. |
|
|
|
No, they can't give a "rats ass", that's what I'm trying to say. Seriously, just look the amount of noise any little thing can provoke around here. The same way that would be extremely difficult to get away with silently tampering the source code, it would be extremely difficult to get away with silently tampering with the blockchain. Actually the latter would likely be more difficult (without having >50% of course). Every attempt to change anything would have to be open and public, and once again you'd have your freedom to choose without being lied to.
No. You will never convince me this is true. What the monetary authorities in the world today do is all pretty much open and for everyone to see and yet people don't care. Bitcoin is different, there are no monetary authorities and I don't want there to be any, ever. Otherwise I just don't have a use for Bitcoin. If this isn't the case, or wont be the case that there is no central authority then I'm done and will sell my bitcoins immediately and move on to better things. So please do let me know if I'm mistaken in thinking that there is no central authority right now. |
|
|
|
I can't afford to read 100+ posts on this subject again, so I'll just address OP. Pardon me if I'm repeating something that has already been said. Right now you are a sovereign in Bitcoin. You should never give that up, under any circumstance.
What do I mean with sovereign? Well there's nothing anyone could possibly do that can make you accept rules you didn't agree with. Nothing. You yourself have to decide to consent to a rule change. But if running a full node becomes impossible for you then all that which you were told about Bitcoin, that rules virtually can't change, that it has a strict limit of 21million, ect, all these rules will then be left to be decided by a small number of super nodes and the people who control them. The second this becomes reality Bitcoin will be no different than simply a slightly more transparent Paypal. And if you don't want that you better make damn sure you can run a full node.
Hazek, It seems you want Bitcoin to be an absolute trust-free system to anyone Nope. Just me. But... how do you even know, for sure, that the code you're running really does implement the contract you claimed to have "signed"?
Peer review + github making it extremely easy to spot. If you can trust the openness of the source code to provide enough reliability for you to use it, why can't you trust the openness of the blockchain to provide the same reliability?
Because I'm not a peer anymore and I have no say in what the rules are anymore. Right now if the network wants to keep me as a blockchain validating, transaction propagating, block validating peer, they need my consent to download a new client. If I can't be such a peer anymore the network will give a rats ass about what I want because they'll control all the peers. The blockchain is open, and as such, it can be validated by anyone with the means to.
Well there's the rub then isn't. What if just a very small group of people has these means? retep seems to make a pretty good case for exactly that happening if the block size limit is increased. |
|
|
|
|
My answer: None of the above.
I will agree to, even advocate for, any rule change which solves a technical problem but leaves the core principles of Bitcoin, immediately and into the foreseeable future, intact, the most important of which is what I call my Bitcoin sovereignty.
|
|
|
|
Which boils down to is it or is it not a zero-trust system?
I suppose you'd argue it is a limited entry level zero trust system, a system that is zero trust for the megacorps and any sufficiently wealhy nations or other sufficiently well heeled players, but for normal folks is just another trust the big boys / trust the grownups / trust Big Brother system?
-MarkM-
Precisely. Right now when I advertise Bitcoin I advertise it as zero trust. I'm afraid, if the little guy can't validate what rules are validated anymore, I wont be able to do so anymore and you can bet many many users will not like this at all to the point that they'll leave, just like I will. We already have trust the big guys systems and look how that's working out. And if anyone is going to try and discredit this position as some sort of ideological grandstanding I invite you to look up the genesis block and read what Satoshi wrote in there and learn what exactly his motivation was when he started Bitcoin. This argument quickly reduces to bringing the goat to the market to trade it for potatoes. Zero trust is an illusion. Even now, you trust you'll have access to the means to access the internet (electricity, for example), and you trust that the internet won't blow up, rendering your bitcoins worthless. It's about managing trust, not about reducing it to zero. Zero trust of course meant zero trust in other people, not absolute zero trust..  Do I really need to spell everything out? Like the people who provide you with E-L-E-C-T-R-I-C-I-T-Y, or who run the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, among others? Ugh... |
|
|
|
Which boils down to is it or is it not a zero-trust system?
I suppose you'd argue it is a limited entry level zero trust system, a system that is zero trust for the megacorps and any sufficiently wealhy nations or other sufficiently well heeled players, but for normal folks is just another trust the big boys / trust the grownups / trust Big Brother system?
-MarkM-
Precisely. Right now when I advertise Bitcoin I advertise it as zero trust. I'm afraid, if the little guy can't validate what rules are validated anymore, I wont be able to do so anymore and you can bet many many users will not like this at all to the point that they'll leave, just like I will. We already have trust the big guys systems and look how that's working out. And if anyone is going to try and discredit this position as some sort of ideological grandstanding I invite you to look up the genesis block and read what Satoshi wrote in there and learn what exactly his motivation was when he started Bitcoin. This argument quickly reduces to bringing the goat to the market to trade it for potatoes. Zero trust is an illusion. Even now, you trust you'll have access to the means to access the internet (electricity, for example), and you trust that the internet won't blow up, rendering your bitcoins worthless. It's about managing trust, not about reducing it to zero. Zero trust of course meant zero trust in other people, not absolute zero trust.. Do I really need to spell everything out? |
|
|
|
Which boils down to is it or is it not a zero-trust system?
I suppose you'd argue it is a limited entry level zero trust system, a system that is zero trust for the megacorps and any sufficiently wealhy nations or other sufficiently well heeled players, but for normal folks is just another trust the big boys / trust the grownups / trust Big Brother system?
-MarkM-
Precisely. Right now when I advertise Bitcoin I advertise it as zero trust. I'm afraid, if the little guy can't validate what rules are validated anymore, I wont be able to do so anymore and you can bet many many users will not like this at all to the point that they'll leave, just like I will. We already have trust the big guys systems and look how that's working out. And if anyone is going to try and discredit this position as some sort of ideological grandstanding I invite you to look up the genesis block and read what Satoshi wrote in there and learn what exactly his motivation was when he started Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Technomage, I just wonder, if block space isn't scarce causing the fees to stay puny, just how are miners going to get funded once block reward gets super small or zero? Indeed. That is why I've advocated for retaining some form of scarcity for the block size. A model with no scarcity could be a disaster. Keeping it as is, and letting Bitcoin slide into a system where user's only function is to keep miners very rich, and pay $20 for a transaction, is quite unacceptable though. There has to be a middle ground. I feel a large majority of userbase will support a middle ground because they want to continue to use Bitcoin more or less as they do now. Perhaps not exactly like now, but more or less. I already said in this thread somewhere on page 5 or 6 that I'm not opposed to a compromise. But it has to be a compromise that isn't at the expense of what I call my Bitcoin sovereignty. I don't care if you increase the block size limit as long as this wont immediately or down the road mean that I cannot personally validate rules miners validate anymore and that I must give my explicit consent to a rule change. I think it would be a good exercise to further explore the likely game play scenarios if the block size limit is doubled(or some higher factor increase) every time the block reward is halved and how long that would take for Bitcoin to be able to handle Paypal amount of transactions while still keep the block space scarce and the blockchain at a reasonable size. |
|
|
|
|
Technomage, I just wonder, if block space isn't scarce causing the fees to stay puny, just how are miners going to get funded once block reward gets super small or zero?
|
|
|
|
I don't like that solution either. It's not linked to actual usage in any way and could lead to issues. Simply doubling it based on time is a totally arbitrary decision.
All decisions about rules in Bitcoin are arbitrary, I really don't understand why you keep throwing that around as if it's a reason not to consider one. It is not even arbitrary in itself, once you already accept halving the block subsidy. It is simply an attempt to give the miners more space to sell to make up for lowering their subsidy. I like that reasoning. |
|
|
|
Mike, like I said a hundred times already.. I don't care how it's solved and am willing to accept almost any rule change as long as I keep my Bitcoin sovereignty. That's all I care about. In short, even if Bitcoin becomes enormous, I can't see a time when hazek is unable to check what the rules are, even in the unlikely even that he is forced to rely on SPV mode.
BTW Bitcoin sovereignty doesn't mean I just want to be able to validate what rules are used when transactions are validated and blocks created and added to the blockchain. It means that these rules also can't change for me without me downloaded a new set. Right now it's extremely hard to do a hard fork if you don't have near complete consensus because of the economic ramifications. You need almost all users to agree. But once you take away full clients from merchants and regular users, rule changes can happen at any time because you don't need them to download anything anymore because they aren't actually validating anything anymore. Yes you can probably still spot a rule change, but you can't affect it by being part of the network and refusing to download a new client threatening a hard fork. But hey, as I said, I don't care how this is achieved. If a light client can give me the same sovereignty, I don't care, as long as it does. As long as I have to give my explicit consent to a rule change, I'm happy. |
|
|
|
I don't like that solution either. It's not linked to actual usage in any way and could lead to issues. Simply doubling it based on time is a totally arbitrary decision.
All decisions about rules in Bitcoin are arbitrary, I really don't understand why you keep throwing that around as if it's a reason not to consider one. |
|
|
|
I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."
It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.
hazek isn't arguing about 56.6 modems. I think it's about balance. The thing is Bitcoin is billed as a currency that users can own, on their own. They don't have to trust anybody. The minute you start decreasing their ability to have a say (and check) of what goes on with the currency you've moved away from it being a currency they own on their own. That doesn't mean higher end users can't use it, but it pushes some people out. To qualify as "grassroots" access I think you have to look at the typical technical capability of, say, average U.S. consumers. The world follows the U.S. as a benchmark on things (for example, see the Big Mac index). So, you want to grab technical specs from there I think, if it's a goal at all. That's not what hazek is arguing. He doesn't want the block size limit changed PERIOD. Ignore the fact that he can easily confirm 10x the limit today on whatever laptop he's using, it's as is or he's out. False and it's exactly what I'm arguing and I've explained this so many times already that if you don't understand by now I simply cannot bother to do it again. |
|
|
|
I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."
It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.
I just want to make sure people understand that this isn't my argument at all. I don't care about those with 56.6k connections, I care about me. I don't care about the 1Mb limit, I care about me. I want to be a sovereign user of Bitcoin and I don't care about how that is achieved or what costs it carries. And if I can't get that from Bitcoin, I'm out. It's really simple. |
|
|
|
|
rsQP8f9fLtd58hwjEArJz2evtrKULnCNif
|
|
|
|
arepo, I have taken your concerns seriously and I thought about them and what others had to say here in this thread. I came - for myself - to the conclusion that your concerns do not have much substance.
I'm not blindly saying "all is good, enjoy the ride": there will be volatility, also to the downside.
I don't buy the "predatory speculation" explanation for the rally. Other simple fundamental reasons (like tons of people discovering bitcoin and businesses entering the game) seem more likely to me.
Neither do I think a "deflationary spiral" would happen or is a bad thing in general. I don't think it's currently applicable to bitcoin.
;tldr: people listened to you but noone got really scared.
Yes he is right, I didn't read practically anything he wrote but the above response sounds pretty much what I'd answer with if I had read it all. The thing that most have a hard time grasping is that when I examine markets I always put ethics first. I.e. the individual having the ability to do whatever and if this means being clobbered in a manipulated market, then so be it because he will learn from it or go extinct and if he learns from it he will be better of next time. So I really don't care what monsters you can find in a market regulated strictly by consumption i.e. in a free market. |
|
|
|
I'm still confused on your argument. Why do you want Bitcoin not to change? You even started your post of confirming the fact that Bitcoin has already changed in the past. Shouldn't you just leave Bitcoin and make your own currency? One that can't change? If it has already changed in the past, why are you fighting so hard that it would never change again?
Especially a change that has been anticipated and talked about since the very beginning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347Raising the max block size was always part of the plan That may well be but me not being able to validate the rules I consented to are being followed most certainly wasn't. I don't care how Bitcoin works, as long as principles I consented to are adhered to and one of those principles is that I can validate that the rules are being followed. I said in the OP I'm not opposed to rule changes per se, but I am opposed to rule change that would change that or the effects of which would inevitably change that. |
|
|
|
I'm confused about what you are arguing. You want everyone to be able to always run a full node, correct?
Wrong. I want me to be able to validate the rules I consented to are followed and right now that means running a full node, I don't care about anybody else or how that is achieved. Which includes a 1Mb block size limit? Given the arguments on both sides that I have heard, yes. But must one validate it on a mobile feature phone or on a computer with a 28kbs modem connection to the Internet? On can one use a thin client on those devices to connect securely to a server under ones control in another location to perform the validation? Raising the 1Mb block size limit is an absolute must in order for Bitcoin to be useful for any significant proportion of the world's population. That's your opinion and you are free to consent to any rules you wish but I wont. I would like to see a special box (bitcoin hardware full node) separate from the computer and work just as node storage and distribution blockchain with large HD connected to the network much like Samsung Chromebox but much cheaper with a very small power consumption and I can turned on 24 hours a day.
Interesting idea. The current 1Mb block size limit places a limit on the Bitcoin network of 7 transactions per second or approximately 604,800 transactions a day. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability. If say 1% of the world's population say 90,000,000 people were to use Bitcoin they would have to wait on average 148 days for their transactions to clear. And this is for what purpose so that once can validate the blockchain over dialup? It is time to do some simple math here. I like the dedicated box idea but I would prefer a client server model where one would connect to the box remotely using a dailup modem while keeping the sensitive encryption keys on the local device. As I've said, I don't care how it's done, all I care is that I am able so be a sovereign Bitcoin user, meaning that rules can't change without my giving my explicit consent via downloading a new client. How this is solved technically is beyond my concerns. |
|
|
|
I'm confused about what you are arguing. You want everyone to be able to always run a full node, correct?
Wrong. I want me to be able to validate the rules I consented to are followed and right now that means running a full node, I don't care about anybody else or how that is achieved. Which includes a 1Mb block size limit? Given the arguments on both sides that I have heard, yes. But must one validate it on a mobile feature phone or on a computer with a 28kbs modem connection to the Internet? On can one use a thin client on those devices to connect securely to a server under ones control in another location to perform the validation? Raising the 1Mb block size limit is an absolute must in order for Bitcoin to be useful for any significant proportion of the world's population. That's your opinion and you are free to consent to any rules you wish but I wont. I would like to see a special box (bitcoin hardware full node) separate from the computer and work just as node storage and distribution blockchain with large HD connected to the network much like Samsung Chromebox but much cheaper with a very small power consumption and I can turned on 24 hours a day.
Interesting idea. |
|
|
|
The client in it's current state is not a viable option for most people to run as a node in the not too far future. Both bandwidth and space issues will only intensify with further acceptance of Bitcoin. Thus either the client has to change with all that entails (such as developer decided rules changes) or more and more people will have to stop running a full node, when it's no longer viable for them.
The sky is falling! Hard drive capacities are only 4TB and falling! Total internet bandwidth can only go down from here!  Congratulations on being part of the 1%. 1% out of 7billion is enough to maintain the rules of Bitcoin. A few super nodes isn't. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
