#Blocksize Survey

[DooMAD]

Yes, flix, that's what the previous five posts in the thread were speaking in reference to. 

oops... I'll remind myself to read before posting!   

Easily done.  I find myself getting the threads mixed up as there's several dozen of them now.   

If I understand correctly, shrinking blocksizes can be much more easily gamed by miners, as it requires only 10%+ of hashpower to prevent blocksizes from shrinking.

It's certainly possible, but if they want to collect a greater quantity of fees, ultimately, keeping blocks deliberately small won't in their best interests.  Diminishing block rewards will naturally incentivise miners to produce larger blocks over time (providing they're significantly filled to trigger the increase).  In theory, this should garner the best of both worlds.  Not an exponential increase, but still room for growth.  Not a blunt-force cap, but a dynamic threshold that reacts to demand.

I'm talking about shrinking blocksizes, not keeping blocks small -- a pool with 10% of hashpower can prevent any shrinkage, i.e. keeping blocksize limit unreasonably high, so the supposed algorithm isn't sound. I'm not saying that it would be rational, just pointing this out.

Okay, we can work on that part, so how do we make it more sound?  The rather frustrating pattern with these discussions is that people are very quick to point out what might not work, but very slow to offer a solution as to what might work.   

[RoadTrain]

If I understand correctly, shrinking blocksizes can be much more easily gamed by miners, as it requires only 10%+ of hashpower to prevent blocksizes from shrinking.

It's certainly possible, but if they want to collect a greater quantity of fees, ultimately, keeping blocks deliberately small won't in their best interests.  Diminishing block rewards will naturally incentivise miners to produce larger blocks over time (providing they're significantly filled to trigger the increase).  In theory, this should garner the best of both worlds.  Not an exponential increase, but still room for growth.  Not a blunt-force cap, but a dynamic threshold that reacts to demand.

I'm talking about shrinking blocksizes, not keeping blocks small -- a pool with 10% of hashpower can prevent any shrinkage, i.e. keeping blocksize limit unreasonably high, so the supposed algorithm isn't sound. I'm not saying that it would be rational, just pointing this out.

Okay, we can work on that part, so how do we make it more sound?  The rather frustrating pattern with these discussions is that people are very quick to point out what might not work, but very slow to offer a solution as to what might work.   

I guess I need to analyze BIP106's proposal 2, it looks more interesting (though more complicated) at a first glance.

[Hugroll]

hey, i dont really follow the bitcoin background updates. i just wanted to know if theres a proposal that supports no change (the limit staying at 1mb). and is that proposal popular. i don't support the " no changers",just wanted to know if theres a chance that they will prevail, cuz imo thats pretty bad for bitcoin.

[hdbuck]

hey, i dont really follow the bitcoin background updates. i just wanted to know if theres a proposal that supports no change (the limit staying at 1mb). and is that proposal popular. i don't support the " no changers",just wanted to know if theres a chance that they will prevail, cuz imo thats pretty bad for bitcoin.

BIP000: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_

and chances are it will prevail.. at least for the next coupla years.

[Hugroll]

hey, i dont really follow the bitcoin background updates. i just wanted to know if theres a proposal that supports no change (the limit staying at 1mb). and is that proposal popular. i don't support the " no changers",just wanted to know if theres a chance that they will prevail, cuz imo thats pretty bad for bitcoin.

BIP000: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_

the one and only true realistic fork!!!

lol that doesnt look like a proposal. all i see is a short "because" speech. He's saying stuff like "Because I conlude that therefore, blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." ?  is he implying that bitcoin wasnt secure when we werent close to the limits?

[Hugroll]

hey, i dont really follow the bitcoin background updates. i just wanted to know if theres a proposal that supports no change (the limit staying at 1mb). and is that proposal popular. i don't support the " no changers",just wanted to know if theres a chance that they will prevail, cuz imo thats pretty bad for bitcoin.

BIP000: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_

and chances are it will prevail.. at least for the next coupla years.

if the blocksize stays at 1mb, people are either going to ditch the currency or end up paying huge fees like $2-10 to incentivize the miner to include the transaction.
idk about you,but to me its like begging to a person to please let my transaction go through. how is that appealing to anyone?

[hdbuck]

hey, i dont really follow the bitcoin background updates. i just wanted to know if theres a proposal that supports no change (the limit staying at 1mb). and is that proposal popular. i don't support the " no changers",just wanted to know if theres a chance that they will prevail, cuz imo thats pretty bad for bitcoin.

BIP000: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_

and chances are it will prevail.. at least for the next coupla years.

if the blocksize stays at 1mb, people are either going to ditch the currency or end up paying huge fees like $2-10 to incentivize the miner to include the transaction.
idk about you,but to me its like begging to a person to please let my transaction go through. how is that appealing to anyone?

1/ now the min fee to get through is <0,02$
2/ i shall wait fo moar data & tests before making any assumptions extrapolations
3/ i am not trying to appeal to anyone. who do you think i am?

[iCEBREAKER]

if the blocksize stays at 1mb, people are either going to ditch the currency or end up paying huge fees like $2-10 to incentivize the miner to include the transaction.
idk about you,but to me its like begging to a person to please let my transaction go through. how is that appealing to anyone?

The only people ditching BTC are the ones who get priced out.  That's marginalism (ie the invisible hand) at work, and they will move to substitutes like Layer 2 or altcoins.

So please stop with the false sense of (omg Bitcoin will die unloved and alone with her cats!) urgency.

Begging would be appealing for charity in the form of underpriced transactions.

As davout states: "block space is a scarce resource that is sold, but not paid for, by the miners" so any generosity on their part is a false economy and a step towards tragedy in the commons.

Stop thinking in terms of yet another payment rail.  $2-$10 is not a "huge fee" considering the miraculous and disruptive properties unique to Bitcoin (and Monero).

Even >$100 is reasonable if the tx in question is responsible for settling out a Lightning channel responsible for $millions.  That's just a normal day for a chain of stores like Macy's (that currently has its own branded credit card but would love to cut Visa out of its action).

Bitcoin's blockchain is the Financial District of e-cash.  You don't/can't scale a financial district sideways with sprawl, you build skyscrapers and max the density.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin's blockchain is the Financial District of e-cash.  You don't/can't scale a financial district sideways with sprawl, you build skyscrapers and max the density.

Yes, you don't push transactions sideways off-chain, you max the density of transactions in blocks.  I couldn't agree more.  But to do that, we'll need larger blocks. 

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin's blockchain is the Financial District of e-cash.  You don't/can't scale a financial district sideways with sprawl, you build skyscrapers and max the density.

Yes, you don't push transactions sideways off-chain, you max the density of transactions in blocks.  I couldn't agree more.  But to do that, we'll need larger blocks. 

Yes, an off-chain coin is an altcoin (cripplecoin).

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin's blockchain is the Financial District of e-cash.  You don't/can't scale a financial district sideways with sprawl, you build skyscrapers and max the density.

Yes, you don't push transactions sideways off-chain, you max the density of transactions in blocks.  I couldn't agree more.  But to do that, we'll need larger blocks. 

Yes, an off-chain coin is an altcoin (cripplecoin).

Altcoins have their own blockchains, (mostly) based on their own proof of work, and backed by their own alternative socioeconomic consensus.

Have you read the Bitcoin FAQ?   

[neoneros]

Bitcoin's blockchain is the Financial District of e-cash.  You don't/can't scale a financial district sideways with sprawl, you build skyscrapers and max the density.

Yes, you don't push transactions sideways off-chain, you max the density of transactions in blocks.  I couldn't agree more.  But to do that, we'll need larger blocks. 

Yes, an off-chain coin is an altcoin (cripplecoin).

Altcoins have their own blockchains, (mostly) based on their own proof of work, and backed by their own alternative socioeconomic consensus.

Have you read the Bitcoin FAQ?   

an off-chain coin is fiat?! or did I miss something?

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin's blockchain is the Financial District of e-cash.  You don't/can't scale a financial district sideways with sprawl, you build skyscrapers and max the density.

Yes, you don't push transactions sideways off-chain, you max the density of transactions in blocks.  I couldn't agree more.  But to do that, we'll need larger blocks. 

Yes, an off-chain coin is an altcoin (cripplecoin).

Altcoins have their own blockchains, (mostly) based on their own proof of work, and backed by their own alternative socioeconomic consensus.

Have you read the Bitcoin FAQ?   

Yes, you are right. An off-chain coin (Blockstream coin) is indeed not even a real altcoin. That's why I wrote "cripplecoin".

[tvbcof]

Yes, you are right. An off-chain coin (Blockstream coin) is indeed not even a real altcoin. That's why I wrote "cripplecoin".

You wrote 'cripplecoin' because you are a tard or a shill (or both.)

The term exists because of the conjecture that limiting the native transaction rate on the blockchain so that everyone's coffee purchase was not stored forever and analyzed forever on the computers of anyone who tried to support the distributed system by running a node would somehow 'cripple' the solutions.

The fact of the matter is that your so-called 'Blockstream coin' is a near perfect proxy for Bitcoin represented in the main chain due to the 2-way peg.  The main 'downside' is that it becomes much more difficult to correlate transactions to individual users and this drives those who wish to do so crazy.

It is a fair bet that 'Blockstream' won't even know of the existence of various sidechains, much less have any control of them and much much less make any money off them.  Unless they close-source their work, but doing this would spell then end of support among a lot of the community.  Certainly it would from me.

At the end of the day, sidechains would do the exact opposite of 'cripple' Bitcoin.  I have a lot of hope that they will explode Bitcoin into an unassailable force in global financial systems and solve some issues which Bitcoin has that are not realistic to solve in any other manner.  Scaling is just one of these.

[Zarathustra]

The forking is gaining speed.

The trolls are downvoted heavily. I guess the 21 Million Dollar attack won't work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jy9y3/meta_what_happened_to_ugavinandresens_expert_flair/cutex4s

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jy9y3/meta_what_happened_to_ugavinandresens_expert_flair/cutfnol

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cut3k4m

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cut7u1b

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cutfmk1

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cutfdhy

[Zarathustra]

Yes, you are right. An off-chain coin (Blockstream coin) is indeed not even a real altcoin. That's why I wrote "cripplecoin".

You wrote 'cripplecoin' because you are a tard or a shill (or both.)

No, I wrote 'cripplecoin' because a coin becomes a cripple as soon as it leaves the real chain and arrives on the cripplechain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jo24n/bitcoin_foundation_todays_shoutout_is_to/curig4c

[brg444]

The forking is gaining speed.

The trolls are downvoted heavily. I guess the 21 Million Dollar attack won't work.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jy9y3/meta_what_happened_to_ugavinandresens_expert_flair/cutex4s

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jy9y3/meta_what_happened_to_ugavinandresens_expert_flair/cutfnol

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cut3k4m

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cut7u1b

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cutfmk1

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3jwebt/mike_hearn_on_sidechains_and_blockstream/cutfdhy

cENShORSHIP!!!!!!!!! 

[iCEBREAKER]

your so-called 'Blockstream coin' is a near perfect proxy for Bitcoin represented in the main chain due to the 2-way peg.  The main 'downside' is that it becomes much more difficult to correlate transactions to individual users and this drives those who wish to do so crazy.

It's becoming clear TPTB (ie sigint.google.mil and tla.mit.gov) have set a strategic goal of forcing most or all full nodes to be relocated in their data centers.

Can you imagine the Google/A16/GS/JPM board meetings where they concede Bitcoin's blockchain is going to be worth trillions?

Do you think they're happy with every Joe Sixcoins being able to run his own bank/stock market/credit union/payment rail?

'Oh Hell NO,' they said.  And then deployed Hearn on his mission to expand node footprints until unsupportable almost anywhere outside of vulnerable, carefully-controlled colocation facilities.

These SHR MIC VC ratfuckers won't stop until they scour every last trace of cypherpunk influence from Bitcoin, and they are able to profit from correlating transactions to individual users.

Small wonder they declared war on Blockstream, and Dr. Backamoto in particular.

This is more than a typical dust-up between IEEE type Dilberts and Wallys versus Goldman-Sachs type Pointy-Haired Bosses and Pointy-Headed CEOs.

To be clear, Hearn = Circle = Goldman = M. Michele Burns = Hillary Clinton = Yankee Lawyer Mafia.  Cite: http://www.coindesk.com/goldman-sachs-director-board-bitcoin-startup-circle/

Per Chaum, the price of our digital freedom is eternal vigilance, guarding against XT-like governance coups and malicious forks.

Wall Street is coming, and the intend to either buy or destroy anything that smells like disruption.

[uxgpf]

The forking is gaining speed.

The trolls are downvoted heavily. I guess the 21 Million Dollar attack won't work.

But trolls can't be downvoted here on BCT. All reasonable discussion drowns due to few trolls conquering the threads and driving others away. (people get tired of constant nonsense and ad-hominem attacks)

[brg444]

your so-called 'Blockstream coin' is a near perfect proxy for Bitcoin represented in the main chain due to the 2-way peg.  The main 'downside' is that it becomes much more difficult to correlate transactions to individual users and this drives those who wish to do so crazy.

It's becoming clear TPTB (ie sigint.google.mil and tla.mit.gov) have set a strategic goal of forcing most or all full nodes to be relocated in their data centers.

Can you imagine the Google/A16/GS/JPM board meetings where they concede Bitcoin's blockchain is going to be worth trillions?

Do you think they're happy with every Joe Sixcoins being able to run his own bank/stock market/credit union/payment rail?

'Oh Hell NO,' they said.  And then deployed Hearn on his mission to expand node footprints until unsupportable almost anywhere outside of vulnerable, carefully-controlled colocation facilities.

These SHR MIC VC ratfuckers won't stop until they scour every last trace of cypherpunk influence from Bitcoin, and they are able to profit from correlating transactions to individual users.

I think it needs to be mentioned the war also seems to be on China. It is a perfectly rational fact to expect that most of the big time bankers backing these VC companies are not comfortable with +50% of the network being run from there. Mike Hearn has been extremely clear in his position that mining should be available only to those with the best bandwidth connection.

It is quite obvious he would prefer bitcoin to be run from datacenters and concentrate mining into geo-politically favorable locations.

His attempt to promote SPV wallets shows how little he care about actual full node users. To him they are "casualties of the network growth" but he absolutely doesn't realizes they actually maintain its strength. If there is one right that should exist in Bitcoin it should be that one is able to enjoy the full privacy of the p2p network through running his own personal node. This is worth all the transactions in the world.

Mike Hearn wants to take Bitcoin away from us and hand it over to a bunch of corporations supported by his SPVcoin so that they have absolute control over transaction relaying and the governance of the network.

What a horrible human being