Epicenter Bitcoin interview - Mike Hearn

[RoadStress]

I don't have a clue. But I remember reading articles on Gavin's blog where he showed advantages and disadvantages of the 20MB blocks. Blog posts like this one http://gavinandresen.ninja/why-increasing-the-max-block-size-is-urgent that I thought were based on testing and real numbers...

I know those articles, but I only see predictions, simulations and lots of math. Nothing concrete. I want to see a real blocks on a test chain that have 20MB of gibberish to run full for one week. I want to see a test chain where we have a 1MB cap and 5MB of transactions. Simulations are usually done before doing testing it live. I'm waiting for the live tests. I know that most of the software companies have a couple of environments with different stages of the software just so they can spot the problems and to filter them from the production/live version. Why don't we have this kind of laboratory???

[QuestionAuthority]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

[tvbcof]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

[QuestionAuthority]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

Yeah, a real shocker. Hearn scares me because he's shown his true colors. For Bitcoin to advance it needs a few basic characteristics to be left intact. Fungibility and scarcity are two biggies in my book. Remove them and Bitcoin won't even have the value of PayPal or MasterCard. At least they have fraud protection.

[sickpig]

This is what I've posted on Reddit:

I have a couple of questions after listening to this episode. Mike was saying that we don't know what will happen when the backlog will keep growing.

Why don't we have some sort of "Staging" blockchain where we can test stuff happening? Why don't we have a live laboratory for these kind of tests? Are we only using math to predict stuff? ELI5!

sidechain anyone ?

[RoadStress]

This is what I've posted on Reddit:

I have a couple of questions after listening to this episode. Mike was saying that we don't know what will happen when the backlog will keep growing.

Why don't we have some sort of "Staging" blockchain where we can test stuff happening? Why don't we have a live laboratory for these kind of tests? Are we only using math to predict stuff? ELI5!

sidechain anyone ?

So you are telling me that since 2008 we didn't have any testing environment and that we had to wait for a new environment that is currently in alpha mode to be able to test stuff? Is this real life? Because I simply can't believe it!

Why don't we have a testing environment? It appears that nobody can answer this and this is surprising me. I am panicked right now!

[sickpig]

This is what I've posted on Reddit:

I have a couple of questions after listening to this episode. Mike was saying that we don't know what will happen when the backlog will keep growing.

Why don't we have some sort of "Staging" blockchain where we can test stuff happening? Why don't we have a live laboratory for these kind of tests? Are we only using math to predict stuff? ELI5!

sidechain anyone ?

So you are telling me that since 2008 we didn't have any testing environment and that we had to wait for a new environment that is currently in alpha mode to be able to test stuff? Is this real life? Because I simply can't believe it!

Why don't we have a testing environment? It appears that nobody can answer this and this is surprising me. I am panicked right now!

easy, I was smiling.

I mentioned SideChains in this context, because testing dangerous new features it is precisely what Adam Back envisioned SC for, among other things.

That said, bitcoin has a test network, bitcoin core has a currently used test suite and Gavin hacked bitcoin core to deal with 20MB blocks and tested it
using the real blockchain txs, you can look at http://gavintech.blogspot.it/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html

Surely this is not enough, though.

[J. J. Phillips]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

Yeah, a real shocker. Hearn scares me because he's shown his true colors. For Bitcoin to advance it needs a few basic characteristics to be left intact. Fungibility and scarcity are two biggies in my book. Remove them and Bitcoin won't even have the value of PayPal or MasterCard. At least they have fraud protection.

One part of the interview that concerned me: they asked Mike Hearn if he planned to give control of XT over to Gavin Andresen, and Hearn avoided giving a direct answer. It feels a little like witnessing a coup.

[J. J. Phillips]

Another disturbing point: Hearn said very few bitcoin nodes are run through Tor. I don't know if that's true, but I think people who run full nodes from an IP that can be traced to them are very naive.

[jonald_fyookball]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

I think few in this community would disagree with me when I say Hearn can bite my shiny metal ass if thinks I'll ever support blacklisting.

[tvbcof]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

I think few in this community would disagree with me when I say Hearn can bite my shiny metal ass if thinks I'll ever support blacklisting.

The whole point of bloating the blockchain is to arrange for a situation where your 'support' doesn't matter a whole lot.

[jonald_fyookball]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

I think few in this community would disagree with me when I say Hearn can bite my shiny metal ass if thinks I'll ever support blacklisting.

The whole point of bloating the blockchain is to arrange for a situation where your 'support' doesn't matter a whole lot.

Ok, well then if he thinks he's going to get consensus on blacklisting, he's dreaming.

[tvbcof]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

I think few in this community would disagree with me when I say Hearn can bite my shiny metal ass if thinks I'll ever support blacklisting.

The whole point of bloating the blockchain is to arrange for a situation where your 'support' doesn't matter a whole lot.

Ok, well then if he thinks he's going to get consensus on blacklisting, he's dreaming.

To make changes one only needs consensus of infrastructure operators.  Offering them the option of remaining in business and supplied with the necessary bandwidth on one hand, and confiscating their (fairly expensive) gear and throwing them in jail on the other is a good way to obtain consensus. 

Note that blacklisting/whitelisting can be done completely outside of Bitcoin as a separate layer.  That is why bloat and growth is being pushed so hard.  The fewer people who can operate the infrastructure the easier it will be to intimidate them, and the more resources they need the more prone they are to intimidation and the harder it is for them to hide.

People think they are going to 'boycott' operators who honor blacklists/whitelists.  No they are not.  Even if they can find any who remain in business, blacklisted or non-whitelisted BTC will be less usable and command less value.  A few people are going to be willing to take the bullet and give face value for such coins, and those who do will immediately find their stash increasingly tainted.  That is why economically literate people are screaming from the roof-tops about fungibility.

The bloatchain push is the 'extend' part of the classic 'embrace, extend, extinguish' attack.  [white|black]listing will be the extinguish part and it will come not long after.

[RoadStress]

Another disturbing point: Hearn said very few bitcoin nodes are run through Tor. I don't know if that's true, but I think people who run full nodes from an IP that can be traced to them are very naive.

The fact that very few run through Tor makes your statement brainless and useless. I haven't heard of anyone having problems, but maybe you know something that I don't or you are just spreading useless FUD.

[jonald_fyookball]

Is this the fork that has Hearn's blacklisting implemented or do we have to wait for the next one? LOL

Those two jackoffs at 'epicenterbitcoin' didn't cover that little aspect of Mike's recent work, and he didn't bring it up for some odd reason.  Amazing, eh?

I think few in this community would disagree with me when I say Hearn can bite my shiny metal ass if thinks I'll ever support blacklisting.

The whole point of bloating the blockchain is to arrange for a situation where your 'support' doesn't matter a whole lot.

Ok, well then if he thinks he's going to get consensus on blacklisting, he's dreaming.

To make changes one only needs consensus of infrastructure operators.  Offering them the option of remaining in business and supplied with the necessary bandwidth on one hand, and confiscating their (fairly expensive) gear and throwing them in jail on the other is a good way to obtain consensus. 

Note that blacklisting/whitelisting can be done completely outside of Bitcoin as a separate layer.  That is why bloat and growth is being pushed so hard.  The fewer people who can operate the infrastructure the easier it will be to intimidate them, and the more resources they need the more prone they are to intimidation and the harder it is for them to hide.

People think they are going to 'boycott' operators who honor blacklists/whitelists.  No they are not.  Even if they can find any who remain in business, blacklisted or non-whitelisted BTC will be less usable and command less value.  A few people are going to be willing to take the bullet and give face value for such coins, and those who do will immediately find their stash increasingly tainted.  That is why economically literate people are screaming from the roof-tops about fungibility.

The bloatchain push is the 'extend' part of the classic 'embrace, extend, extinguish' attack.  [white|black]listing will be the extinguish part and it will come not long after.

What do you mean by operators?  Miners?  Exchanges?  I hear what you are saying but I don't see that 'their' attack can work. 

[tvbcof]

...
Note that blacklisting/whitelisting can be done completely outside of Bitcoin as a separate layer.  That is why bloat and growth is being pushed so hard.  The fewer people who can operate the infrastructure the easier it will be to intimidate them, and the more resources they need the more prone they are to intimidation and the harder it is for them to hide.
...

What do you mean by operators?  Miners?  Exchanges?  I hear what you are saying but I don't see that 'their' attack can work. 

John Kenneth Galbraith famously stated in describing a debt-based fiat currency,

"The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled."

[white|black]listing is the same deal.  The government simply tells (say) Coinbase that they need to retain the services of a chartered authority such as (say) CoinValidation if they want to do business in the United States.  You think Mellon-Waters-n-crew just went away?  Doubt it.  My strong suspicion is that they are waiting in the wings for Hearn to get his part done.

[jonald_fyookball]

...
Note that blacklisting/whitelisting can be done completely outside of Bitcoin as a separate layer.  That is why bloat and growth is being pushed so hard.  The fewer people who can operate the infrastructure the easier it will be to intimidate them, and the more resources they need the more prone they are to intimidation and the harder it is for them to hide.
...

What do you mean by operators?  Miners?  Exchanges?  I hear what you are saying but I don't see that 'their' attack can work. 

John Kenneth Galbraith famously stated in describing a debt-based fiat currency,

"The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled."

[white|black]listing is the same deal.  The government simply tells (say) Coinbase that they need to retain the services of a chartered authority such as (say) CoinValidation if they want to do business in the United States.  You think Mellon-Waters-n-crew just went away?  Doubt it.  My strong suspicion is that they are waiting in the wings for Hearn to get his part done.

Attacking at the point of fiat transfer is a target, true.... Call me an optimist but I don't think blacklisting will have any stick, even if full node operation becomes more centralized.

[tvbcof]

...
Note that blacklisting/whitelisting can be done completely outside of Bitcoin as a separate layer.  That is why bloat and growth is being pushed so hard.  The fewer people who can operate the infrastructure the easier it will be to intimidate them, and the more resources they need the more prone they are to intimidation and the harder it is for them to hide.
...

What do you mean by operators?  Miners?  Exchanges?  I hear what you are saying but I don't see that 'their' attack can work. 

John Kenneth Galbraith famously stated in describing a debt-based fiat currency,

"The process by which money is created is so simple the mind is repelled."

[white|black]listing is the same deal.  The government simply tells (say) Coinbase that they need to retain the services of a chartered authority such as (say) CoinValidation if they want to do business in the United States.  You think Mellon-Waters-n-crew just went away?  Doubt it.  My strong suspicion is that they are waiting in the wings for Hearn to get his part done.

Attacking at the point of fiat transfer is a target, true.... Call me an optimist but I don't think blacklisting will have any stick, even if full node operation becomes more centralized.

All corporate entities operate at the pleasure of the state and are easily brought under the same pressure.

Making and API call to a validation service would add only an unnoticeable amount of time to a transaction so the only excuse that a would-be Bitcoin enabled retailer (for instance) would have would be loss of customers.  But it would be remarkably easy to argue that people who won't property validate their coins are probably criminals and terrorists so why should they not?  A strong majority of the population would buy that argument.  Fuck, a decent percentage of today's Bitcoin users themselves probably would!

The only way to win this battle would be to enlist the support of power-players to put pressure on the state to lay off.  Individuals simply don't have the pull even in our Democracy.  Lots and lots of individuals love big brother exactly as they are trained to do and would attack something which threatened him anyway.  Power-players might find the idea of breaking the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money supply and taking a piece of the action very tempting and thus apply the kind of pressure to the state that they respond to.  This is one of the hopes I have for sidechains.

[jonald_fyookball]

its a possible scenario..comes down to people's level of awareness and
tolerance for BS whether people will accept that kind of nanny state.
With Bitcoin, at least it is an open system and they cannot enforce
things they way they can with the banking system today.  So it
will be up to the people if they want to be free or not. 

[J. J. Phillips]

Another disturbing point: Hearn said very few bitcoin nodes are run through Tor. I don't know if that's true, but I think people who run full nodes from an IP that can be traced to them are very naive.

The fact that very few run through Tor makes your statement brainless and useless. I haven't heard of anyone having problems, but maybe you know something that I don't or you are just spreading useless FUD.

You're probably right. Yesterday I was probably extra paranoid because I saw the story that commenters on an article at Reason about the Silk Road were being targetted by a government prosecutor. In the light of the morning, I can see it's a little outlandish to think that the government will start targetting people because they ran a bitcoin full node. That would be like government revenue agencies targetting people because of their political activism. We're fortunate enough to live in a time and place when that sort of thing doesn't happen.

/s