I didn't state that. you are the only person to use those words, right here. wow. You just stated that Satoshi created a Consensus mechanism that he understood was flawed.
And thus every comment he made about it after the v0.1 release was willful obfuscation.
|
|
|
|
Your post makes me chuckle. I'm well aware of the context in which he made his statements. I've read every single post satoshi ever made on this forum. nowhere did I state that the 1M cap was in place in v0.1. You misinterpreted. I don't even care to comment on the rest. All I'm saying is that if Satoshi was somehow unaware of the ramifications of that change when he made it, then he was a fool. I don't believe he was a fool, thus I **personally** believe he had an idea it would exist in perpetuity, or at any rate be hard to change later. You don' t have to believe that way. I'm only stating my opinion. deal with it. I would advise you to do more research prior to attempting to salvage OP's failed premise
that Satoshi and/or Hal, with foreknowledge created Bitcoin to transfigure into a device to
facilitate "Ideal Money". If it becomes so, it was purely by accident.
|
|
|
|
There is another Satoshi quote, already in this thread a while back, that demonstrates Satoshi made bitcoin resistant to change by design. That, combined with the facts that he snuck this 1M change into a release without telling anyone and that he left without providing any sort of warning about it or, upgrade advice, to me is counterevidence that he at least had a pretty good idea it would stick around, or should have. edit: here is the satoshi quote. context is talking about the rationale for the script language. The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.
That combined with the fact that people immediately jumped in and stated it was dangerous and could be hard to change in the future... well, it's hard to argue he was somehow clueless and unaware. But really that's all just a curiosity, satoshi's motivations. argument by authority and all that. plus today, it is what it is. I think it does mean that you should stop claiming Satoshi actually created what you/Nash are looking for on purpose. It looks more like it was created as a happy coincidence due to a temporary bug fix.
|
|
|
|
yes, personally I think that Satoshi knew *exactly* what he was doing with the 1Mb cap, and that it would most likely never be changed. At least he had to consider that when he pulled his disappearing act.
Depends if 1 MB cap was added as a missing property to his vision, or as a short term technical solution. he understood the long term properties of the system. That it would become harder and harder to change, the more people use it. |
|
|
|
I might be able to think of one, perhaps something about transporting gold between vaults vs people on the streets, but I don't really feel a need to convince you. Think about it for yourself. or don't. good luck. bitcoin didn't change. honey badger don't care. 'nuff said. Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event.
That was not a change to the properties of bitcoin. only to usage, perception. The type of change you are talking about (and Ver, et al) is more like if gold was somewhat abundant and easy to find, then it mostly all got dug up and hoarded. I am not convinced. Your analogy is inapplicable. It has nothing to do with tps increase, and is more akin to the miners hoarding their spoils (which indeed may be occurring today, for all we know). Do you have e better analogy to make your case? |
|
|
|
yes, personally I think that Satoshi knew *exactly* what he was doing with the 1Mb cap, and that it would most likely never be changed. At least he had to consider that when he pulled his disappearing act. Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you.
The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the single minded outcome of improving, scaling, and mass adoption.
That is a lot of momentum. A lot of flow to swim against.
Yes but I would suggest it was known from the start that the system would realize stability of this kind and that it would need to be initially designed so that the minority had a veto vs ignorant change. The other point is that the debate arises because both sides are pursuing an irrational ends with an irrational means. That would start an unwinnable war. |
|
|
|
actually I've been eating popcorn during this whole debate and waiting for everyone else to figure out that bitcoin is ossifying like ipv4 and scaling is impossible, at least without 2nd layer solutions. Of which cash can be one. that's what I love about this thread. seems like an awakening. Do we understand how irrational and silly it sounds to me to hear core supporters and elite say "we gotta stop fitting and figure out how to scale responsibly!"?
Given everything you have said, yes, any changes to scale Bitcoin would sound irrational to you. The problem is that everyone else here, myself included, have been working very hard for years before you showed up with the direction of improving, scaling, adding value, and mass adoption. That is a lot of momentum. A lot of current to swim against and stop. Lucky for you/Nash/Satoshi(?) consensus is nearly impossible. |
|
|
|
That was not a change to the properties of bitcoin. only to usage, perception. The type of change you are talking about (and Ver, et al) is more like if gold was somewhat abundant and easy to find, then it mostly all got dug up and hoarded. yet, it is a type of usage change, but the properties of gold remain the same, and also it was entirely forseeable to anyone that cared enough to do a small amount of research. The fact that certain people had incorrect beliefs about the properties of bitcoin and were surprised when usage changed because of those properties does not mean that bitcoin itself changed. People need to see this clearly and get this incorrect thinking out of their heads. Yes but its more so the CHANGE that the markets won't like. People ask why is 1mb the magic number. its not, but whatever satoshi put it at, I think we need to consider leaving it there, in this case its 1mb
Now it may be useful to get back to the Economic Change Event. The idea in a nutshell: until about a year ago, the block size cap had no effect upon the system. Blocks were consistently well below 1MB in size. On the few occasions that the max size was hit, it did not create a persistent backlog of transactions awaiting inclusion in a block. From an economic perspective, the hitting of the block size was in itself a change. Many perceive the economic change as more significant then would be a technical change to the block size. The evaluation of the effect of either of these changes upon the value of Bitcoin would be significant towards purposing Bitcoin as a step towards Nashian ideal money, would it not? |
|
|
|
|
good stuff. yes, markets like predictability. bitcoin's consensus code is 100% predictable. Unless an immoral change is made without 100% agreement of invested parties. Fortunately that is hard to do. The more people that are aware of this point of view the better because a small number can veto, and a veto is all that is necessary.
|
|
|
|
I think that some (most?) core devs really do care about preserving bitcoin's value and keeping it stable and not making changes that would create winners and losers. (paraphrasing gmawell writing some time ago.) That's why they fought back against Gavin's proposed blocksize increases early on. But there has been so much community pressure to increase TPS, that they felt they must release something in that direction, hence segwit. it may be that some of them would not be so averse to these ideas, if exposed. I'm curious if this thread has come to gmaxwell's attention yet, or any other core dev. The reason we have all the shouting is because no body is basing their understanding or beliefs on the rational well founded argument which is the pursuit of a stable metric of value. Nash shows that if we guard bitcoin's qualities in the Nashian sense, then our legacy institutions will naturally levate a stable metric of value.
Then all founded proposals must speak to this end. If they do not, then they do not serve the world thus they are not founded.
|
|
|
|
Yes, from the first day I read about bitcoin I realized it's importance to curtail central banks influence and bring about a sound money. Though I was not aware of Nash's ideal money and tended to think in terms of Thiers' law. I see bitcoin as the first practical application of Theirs' law, because it appears immune to legal tender laws that have killed other attempts. Edit: i have always intuitively sensed that fiat would have to follow suit with bitcoin, and thus impove or die. Essentially that bitcoin can be used as a measuring stick. This is already beginning to happen. I do not believe that any consensus level change can be made that would not affect its value "in the nashian sense", even if made for that intended goal. And by granting devs moral authority to make a "good" change, it also opens the door to bad change. slippery slope.
I'm saving this realization because its completely not palatable to nearly anyone. But its based on reason and founded arguments. And so did you say this was your feeling from the start? Or in other words do you see the significance of the relevance of Ideal Money? |
|
|
|
I define consensus rules to be anything that all bitcoin clients need to agree on. So your "certain additions" would fall under that, and in my view should not be allowed. except when released with a new genesis block. I don't know how to be more clear. Whether it's a part of consensus rules or not, certain additions need soft forks so that older versions of the client can interpret blocks made by newer clients using those additions safely, i.e. without causing hazardous network splits between old nodes and new nodes should the old nodes reject blocks with the additional features.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not believe that any consensus level change can be made that would not affect its value "in the nashian sense", even if made for that intended goal. And by granting devs moral authority to make a "good" change, it also opens the door to bad change. slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
|
anyway, by that time I think that bitcoin would be embedded into so many systems that changing it would be literally impossible. like ipv4 is today. So a new blockchain and market based adoption becomes literally the only possible upgrade path. There would of course be a lengthy transition period, where the new co-exists with the old and people buy/sell back and forth between them.
|
|
|
|
If technology became such that quantum computing provided a security leak and threatened the whole system such a change would be implied to be good because such a technology would destory bitcoin's value if it was allowed to.
Some change is to be allowed.
In this case, new code could be released with a new genesis block and intelligent people (ie the market) could move their funds to it. Eventually bitcoin 1.0 would be abandoned. so what? I see no reason to compromise on the principle of immutability. |
|
|
|
of course it does. if it did not, there would be no debate, no soft fork proposal. any client could just do it. Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code.
Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem. |
|
|
|
segwit would fix the malleability problem and would fix the quadratic verification issue, amongst other things. In particular the malleability fix would be useful for second layer TPS solutions, but not entirely necessary. It also provides a TPS bump, almost as a side effect. To my mind, these are mostly all good things, and should have been in the original design. But that does NOT mean that I support adding them now. rather, the opposite. to do so would be to force this value change on others immorally, without full consent. Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.
I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.
Core is proposing a damaging proposal, because they are including an increase in tps in the proposal. Is this correct or no? |
|
|
|
Carlton, I fail to see why segregating witness data is relevant, tps increase or not. It is a CHANGE. Op (and I) are advocating against change. Do you not see that? Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code. (unless released with a new genesis block). And OP is advocating that any bitcoin change be vetted through the filter of it advances Nashian goals... which is pretty much the same thing. Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.
I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.
|
|
|
|
If it is not a change then I guess is it already in active use by bitcoin nodes worldwide right? I can go make a segwit transaction now right? oh wait, no I can't. and it's not. because... it is a change to the consensus layer. addition, change. whatever. it's a change. Carlton, and company. How did you come to the conclusion segwit isn't a change OR doesn't increase the tps?
Here's how. Segregated witness does not need to increase the tps, you've already heard my attitude to that. In it's own right, segwit simply segregates the signatures into a separate, parallel block structure. Further, segwit isn't a change. It's an addition. |
|
|
|
OP (and I) are saying that bitcoin's consensus code should not be changed. I don't think anyone has asserted that off-chain tx should be limited somehow. seems irrelevant. you must define TPS as on chain TPS only.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
