Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?

[cjmoles]

However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe.  If there were some inside information that the general bitcoin public were not privy to, then that answer would be elusive.  I mean...there ARE backroom talks of regulation and there ARE big banks investing in blockchain ledger research....One has to ask:  What part of the core group of developers, responsible for keeping the blockchain healthy, are in the loop of these backroom discussions?  Too much too soon would be precarious, but too little too late would be detrimental.

[1715073215]

1715073215

[1715073215]

1715073215

[1715073215]

1715073215

[1715073215]

1715073215

[Carlton Banks]

Um, no. All the proposals for scaling up are available publicly, you can peruse them at will.

There's 4-5 blocksize scaling BIPS in the bitcoin github, and the lightning hubs stuff has 2 main white papers.

[cjmoles]

Um, no. All the proposals for scaling up are available publicly, you can peruse them at will.

There's 4-5 blocksize scaling BIPS in the bitcoin github, and the lightning hubs stuff has 2 main white papers.

I understand that there are several proposed solutions; however, which solution fits best seems to be reliant on whatever is being negotiated in backroom discussions with those entities which have the numbers that could potentially saturate the system. It's a question between the economic powerhouses and the general consensus at this point....only, very few are in the loop about the information being discussed behind closed doors, it seems.

[Carlton Banks]

However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe. 

It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table.

[cjmoles]

However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe. 

It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table.

Well, if the blocksize is increased too much and the adoption rate remains stifled, then it would disadvantage the miners economically,  right?  But, if the blocksize isn't increased enough, then it wouldn't make sense economically for big business to adopt the existing technology, right?  However, if there were some inside information that some sort of big business opportunity was dependent on the state of the blocksize, then that would determine which proposal would be best suited to meet everybody's need.

The thread topic states it best: "Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?"

[Cconvert2G36]

However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe. 

It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table.

Well, if the blocksize is increased too much and the adoption rate remains stifled, then it would disadvantage the miners economically,  right?  But, if the blocksize isn't increased enough, then it wouldn't make sense economically for big business to adopt the existing technology, right?  However, if there were some inside information that some sort of big business opportunity was dependent on the state of the blocksize, then that would determine which proposal would be best suited to meet everybody's need.

The thread topic states it best: "Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?"

Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.

[Carlton Banks]

Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.

What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist).

Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy.

I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion.

[SebastianJu]

Well, i might be wrong and they really have no such motives and they really believe all this... nonsense... of centralization, because some old computers cannot be nodes anymore, or that we need a fee market for some reason no one than they can understand. But these arguments seem so far fetched that you ask yourself if they did not find better ones at all.

I don't understand why you cannot grasp it. Nevermind that 'old computers' strawman, it's quite simple.

Larger blocks create centralizing pressure on nodes by raising the cost of creating and running them. Do you argee with that? Do you agree that we must consider it as a part of security-scalability tradeoff? If yes, then you are much closer to Blockstream guys than you might think.

I agree that there might be a centralizing effect. But that effect is not even high enough than the technical development. The harddisc spaces doubles how often for the same price? The cpu-power doubles how often for the same price? Internet speed grows constantly too. And so on. If some old computers has to be replaced then this is the natural way it went all the time till now. Why should bitcoin be different there?

And be honest... what pressure? Even when we would have 2 MB blocks in 2 years... that is nothing each 10 minutes. This is like some spook that is painted on the wall... but it simply has no substance.

So i see that there might be an effect but that effect is easily eaten by the technological progress. In reality it will not be a problem. Of course when one thinks the way that we will use the same old tech in 2 years then it might be that there is an effect. Though that is simply far away from reality.

[SebastianJu]

However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

I think if most really fear to drop the limit completely, which looks like it is the case, then there should be enough space for a relatively big adoption wave. Not sure in which amount of transaction raise. And new forks need to be ready to being rolled out in case that is not enough.

[SebastianJu]

Um, no. All the proposals for scaling up are available publicly, you can peruse them at will.

There's 4-5 blocksize scaling BIPS in the bitcoin github, and the lightning hubs stuff has 2 main white papers.

I understand that there are several proposed solutions; however, which solution fits best seems to be reliant on whatever is being negotiated in backroom discussions with those entities which have the numbers that could potentially saturate the system. It's a question between the economic powerhouses and the general consensus at this point....only, very few are in the loop about the information being discussed behind closed doors, it seems.

In the recent price rush of bitcoin and following price drop we already had legit transactions filling all the blocks. Which led to me losing money because my decently feed transactions didn't reach the exchange fast enough. Or not in the normal speed. Took hours. Which can be deadly with volatility of bitcoin price.

So it is not a hypothetical problem, it is live on here. Legit transactions, no spam. And the system is not enough unlimited to be reliable. Imagining that this should be the normal state and a high percent of legit transactions will never confirm can only mean death to bitocin.

[SebastianJu]

However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe. 

It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table.

Well, if the blocksize is increased too much and the adoption rate remains stifled, then it would disadvantage the miners economically,  right?  But, if the blocksize isn't increased enough, then it wouldn't make sense economically for big business to adopt the existing technology, right?  However, if there were some inside information that some sort of big business opportunity was dependent on the state of the blocksize, then that would determine which proposal would be best suited to meet everybody's need.

The thread topic states it best: "Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?"

It wouldn't affect the miners negatively when the limit would be higher. Because mostly the blocks are not full now too. If there is 50% free space in blocks or 500% doesn't change the fees the miners will get. And since the blocks will only be as big as the real amount of transactions, there will be no speed problem too then. 8MB blocks will not be filled immediately.

[RoadTrain]

Well, i might be wrong and they really have no such motives and they really believe all this... nonsense... of centralization, because some old computers cannot be nodes anymore, or that we need a fee market for some reason no one than they can understand. But these arguments seem so far fetched that you ask yourself if they did not find better ones at all.

I don't understand why you cannot grasp it. Nevermind that 'old computers' strawman, it's quite simple.

Larger blocks create centralizing pressure on nodes by raising the cost of creating and running them. Do you argee with that? Do you agree that we must consider it as a part of security-scalability tradeoff? If yes, then you are much closer to Blockstream guys than you might think.

I agree that there might be a centralizing effect. But that effect is not even high enough than the technical development. The harddisc spaces doubles how often for the same price? The cpu-power doubles how often for the same price? Internet speed grows constantly too. And so on. If some old computers has to be replaced then this is the natural way it went all the time till now. Why should bitcoin be different there?

And be honest... what pressure? Even when we would have 2 MB blocks in 2 years... that is nothing each 10 minutes. This is like some spook that is painted on the wall... but it simply has no substance.

So i see that there might be an effect but that effect is easily eaten by the technological progress. In reality it will not be a problem. Of course when one thinks the way that we will use the same old tech in 2 years then it might be that there is an effect. Though that is simply far away from reality.

So you simply disregard that concern, because you think it's nothing. Do you back it up by numbers, maybe?

Your beloved Moore's law (which is not a law actually, just an observation, which is not guaranteed to continue) is already failing, with CPU performance doubling roughly every 2.5 years. Internet bandwidth is increasing 30% per year on average at best. Meanwhile, actual blocksizes have risen more than 4-fold in the last 2 years. Don't you notice the large expanding gap here? Where does this gap stop expanding?

[mezzomix]

Where does this gap stop expanding?

Off-chain transactions and side chains.

[Zarathustra]

Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.

What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist).

Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy.

I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion.

Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition.

[RoadTrain]

Where does this gap stop expanding?

Off-chain transactions and side chains.

Right, I also see this inevitable.

[Carlton Banks]

Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.

What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist).

Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy.

I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion.

Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition.

Right, except that when one internet standards body tries to develop a new standard, competing teams compete by proposing their own system, not hijacking the system of another team so as to change the way that standard works. Get it?  

[RealBitcoin]

I might be amateur to this but I think a larger blocksize will eventually be needed. Perhaps not forcing the network, but later on adopting it.

Of course the longer we wait the harder will be to convince miners, so its a big organization problem.

C`mon it's 2015 everybody has atleast 1 mb/s internet, they can download those stupid blocks in 10 minutes easily.

[Carlton Banks]

I might be amateur to this but I think a larger blocksize will eventually be needed.

Probably +95% share that view.

The difference is that: some think that we should use blocksize to solve all scaling problems (when that's not even possible), the other camp wants to do everything possible to increase the transaction rate before increasing the blocksize.

I'm in the latter camp. The former camp likes to mischaracterise this as 1MB4EVA, but it's as obvious to me as to anyone else that the limit will have to go up, but let's minimise that.

[hdbuck]

I might be amateur to this but I think a larger blocksize will eventually be needed.

Probably +95% share that view.

The difference is that: some think that we should use blocksize to solve all scaling problems (when that's not even possible), the other camp wants to do everything possible to increase the transaction rate before increasing the blocksize.

I'm in the latter camp. The former camp likes to mischaracterise this as 1MB4EVA, but it's as obvious to me as to anyone else that the limit will have to go up, but let's minimise that.

I want to see fees > block reward (at least getting close to) before reconsidering the blocksize.

It is a pretty simple equation imho, and it gives us the Time to investigate and balance the whole ecosystem (nodes, Blockchain growth rate, Miners, sidechains, etc) and monitor the fee market whilst the block rewards shrinks.

[Carlton Banks]

I might be amateur to this but I think a larger blocksize will eventually be needed.

Probably +95% share that view.

The difference is that: some think that we should use blocksize to solve all scaling problems (when that's not even possible), the other camp wants to do everything possible to increase the transaction rate before increasing the blocksize.

I'm in the latter camp. The former camp likes to mischaracterise this as 1MB4EVA, but it's as obvious to me as to anyone else that the limit will have to go up, but let's minimise that.

I want to see fees > block reward (at least getting close to) before reconsidering the blocksize.

It is a pretty simple equation imho, and it gives us the Time to investigate and balance the whole ecosystem (nodes, Blockchain growth rate, Miners, sidechains, etc) and monitor the fee market whilst the block rewards shrinks.

Hmmm, I see where you're coming from there. It's possible that could happen next year; once we're at 12.5 BTC for the block reward, getting up to, say, 10 BTC in fees might not be so unrealistic. I'm sure the miners are aware of that possibility too, no wonder they rejected BIP101 and XT also.