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

[tvbcof]

Discrimination in mining, and Mike being early to realize the 'utility.'  Sorry to have lost you...

Do you understand that the discrimination is only possible with a situation of a limited size?

If there is a space for 10 tx on a block, and the block is always full, the entity that makes the block (the pool/miner), then can chose to give a preference to some tx.
So, it can ask for a fee paid to him directly.
If the block now has the space for 100 tx (example), the miner/pool can still try to ask for a fee, but no one is going to pay it, because there is a very high probability that another miner will incluse all the fees directly.

This simple logic doesn't need a genius evil mind. You should see that mike was already clever on giving this warning a way before this has happened.
...

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.  Discrimination has to do with whether there exist the means to engineer effective discrimination (by limiting the set of potential miners and/or filtering transactions which reach them) and whether there are pressures to do so.  e.g., Political, economic, social, etc.

Block size is mainly related in some degree insofar as it impacts the makeup of entities who can mine.  For instance, large block sizes could increase the technical hurdles to a point that only larger and (at some point) politically favored operators are viable.  Economics plays a similar role due to economies of scale and the threshold at which monetizing alternate revenue streams (e.g., intelligence) is practical.

I will again point out that tapping into the intelligence that comes from monitoring an exchange currency is of very high potential value.  Much more so than, say, reading people's e-mails or cloud storage or watching their web searches.  Imagine the value a wallet service could have if, when a user tried to make a transaction, the service could say 'Hey, one of our partners can sell you the same thing at a 5% discount.'  The only miners who would be economically viable would be those who are large enough to attract a good set of partners.  I would be very surprised not to see 'cash back' for using {internet monster corp here}-wallet app.  And, of course, these massive corporations would mine themselves or any miners they contract with would dance to the tune they play.

The best that could be hoped for in the above world would be that there would be perhaps 4 or 6 choices of what wallet app to use.  I suspect that is what Hearn was thinking when he suggested (correctly) that Bitcoin could work fine if there were that small integer number of copies of the Bitcoin blockchain worldwide.  Anyway this is not the type of Bitcoin I care very much about...after I drain down the profits it has made me...

[1715068932]

1715068932

[1715068932]

1715068932

[1715068932]

1715068932

[1715068932]

1715068932

[HostFat]

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.

Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.

[iCEBREAKER]

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.

Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.

Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP.

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable

The control variable (or scientific constant) in scientific experimentation is the experimental element which is constant and unchanged throughout the course of the investigation. The control variable strongly influences experimental results, and it is held constant during the experiment in order to test the relative relationship of the dependent and independent variables. The control variable itself is not of primary interest to the experimenter.

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections.

[Zarathustra]

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.

Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.

Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP.

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable

The control variable (or scientific constant) in scientific experimentation is the experimental element which is constant and unchanged throughout the course of the investigation. The control variable strongly influences experimental results, and it is held constant during the experiment in order to test the relative relationship of the dependent and independent variables. The control variable itself is not of primary interest to the experimenter.

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections.

Ridiculous. You know very well that the temporary anti-spam cap has not been implemented to enforce fees by blocking the txs stream.

[Cconvert2G36]

We need to strongly stress this 3tps fee market when block subsidy is going to be a minimum of 12.5 btc per block for the next 4 years. Socioeconomic "majority", i.e. not you, says so. #1MB4EVA. #gavinREKT #digitalGOLD #tuckawaydemwallets

[iCEBREAKER]

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.

Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.

Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP.

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable

The control variable (or scientific constant) in scientific experimentation is the experimental element which is constant and unchanged throughout the course of the investigation. The control variable strongly influences experimental results, and it is held constant during the experiment in order to test the relative relationship of the dependent and independent variables. The control variable itself is not of primary interest to the experimenter.

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections.

Ridiculous. You know very well that the temporary anti-spam cap has not been implemented to enforce fees by blocking the txs stream.

The system ossified around 1MB blocks and nothing is going to alter it until there is such a good reason that the socioeconomic majority supports a change.

"Because I really want to" isn't a good enough reason.

Max block size may change eventually but "Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!"

[SebastianJu]

He is one of the main developers so it should have been no problem.

What? Maybe you have missed a lot of the history of this problem or even you are trolling me. 

Then i have missed a lot of the history. Care to explain? My knowledge about the developers is not even deep enough to connect faces to them or big background stories. I only can say which position a couple of them are in.

So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already? That passe me completely. Probably most of the other bitcoiners too then. The controversy suggestions like tainting and so on only came from hearn all the time isn't it?

[HostFat]

So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already?

I'm saying that the block size topic was always avoided by the rest of the team on the mailing list/chat/github while both gavin and hearn were trying to find how to increase it, and this is the only reasons so that they have chosen to make the fork. The last chance.

[SebastianJu]

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change. Sometimes you write things...

The reason why we should change the limit immediately is because we can guess pretty good what will happen. There is no need for a fee market at all. It only needs that legit transactions won't confirm. And who in their right mind should use a currency where he can't be sure that his transaction actually will go through? That would be a waste of time and effort.

And your second claim, not far away from the level of your first one, the 21e6, 10min block target and so on are really important settings. The blocksize limit is arbitrary, artificial and was never an important part until some people decided we need to experiment on bitcoins open heart to see what a fee market, that nobody needs, would look like. It's like bad scientists who experiment on a patient and don't care if the patient might die. We have alternatives, look, blockstream is there.

[SebastianJu]

We need to strongly stress this 3tps fee market when block subsidy is going to be a minimum of 12.5 btc per block for the next 4 years. Socioeconomic "majority", i.e. not you, says so. #1MB4EVA. #gavinREKT #digitalGOLD #tuckawaydemwallets

Because we did not do this when the previous halvings happened and bitcoin nearly died at these points in time...

Where you this strong need take from is a mystery.

[SebastianJu]

What is the socioeconomic majority to you? At the moment it looks like the only one who decided singlehandedly that we don't get bigger blocks now are the developers that have the power to push their will through. I don't see who else decided or could have decided yet.

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.

Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.

Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP.

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable

The control variable (or scientific constant) in scientific experimentation is the experimental element which is constant and unchanged throughout the course of the investigation. The control variable strongly influences experimental results, and it is held constant during the experiment in order to test the relative relationship of the dependent and independent variables. The control variable itself is not of primary interest to the experimenter.

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections.

Ridiculous. You know very well that the temporary anti-spam cap has not been implemented to enforce fees by blocking the txs stream.

The system ossified around 1MB blocks and nothing is going to alter it until there is such a good reason that the socioeconomic majority supports a change.

"Because I really want to" isn't a good enough reason.

Max block size may change eventually but "Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!"

[SebastianJu]

So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already?

I'm saying that the block size topic was always avoided by the rest of the team on the mailing list/chat/github while both gavin and hearn were trying to find how to increase it, and this is the only reasons so that they have chosen to make the fork. The last chance.

Yes, that is what i knew too. Don't know why you thought i'm trolling then. Even when hearn tried to solve it, chosing him as the partner, knowing well how controversy he and his ideas is was not a smart move. Gavin should have know that hearn would misuse his position to implement something stupid that could bring up critics. And it did so hefty that xt died. Now gavins fame is in trouble...

[iCEBREAKER]

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change.

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

[SebastianJu]

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change.

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs.

The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl*

[iCEBREAKER]

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change.

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs.

The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl*

"Denier?"

You mean like a holocaust denier?  What a nice cowardly way to commit Godwin-by-proxy.

In science, denial (aka skepticism) is the default position, as the burden of proof is on the hypothesis being tested.

By not understanding that simple concept, you once again demonstrate what scientific illiteracy looks like.

Did you even read the linked Climategate: Why it Matters article?

I guess since your mind is already made up, you don't care the data was massaged and the model literally used a "fudge factor" designed to produce a hockey stick output no matter the inputs.

I've on top of the warming/climate (and related Malthus) controversy for longer than you've been alive; I can stomp you into the ground in any fact-based debate.  No wonder your only available option is to close your mind and say 'Shut up you Nazi, ManBearPig is totally cereal!"

You know nothing about economics, the scientific method, or software engineering.  In other words, you are the perfect candidate to be a useful idiot for Mikey and his puppet masters at Team Goldman.

[SebastianJu]

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change.

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs.

The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl*

"Denier?"

You mean like a holocaust denier?  What a nice cowardly way to commit Godwin-by-proxy.

In science, denial (aka skepticism) is the default position, as the burden of proof is on the hypothesis being tested.

By not understanding that simple concept, you once again demonstrate what scientific illiteracy looks like.

Did you even read the linked Climategate: Why it Matters article?

I guess since your mind is already made up, you don't care the data was massaged and the model literally used a "fudge factor" designed to produce a hockey stick output no matter the inputs.

I've on top of the warming/climate (and related Malthus) controversy for longer than you've been alive; I can stomp you into the ground in any fact-based debate.  No wonder your only available option is to close your mind and say 'Shut up you Nazi, ManBearPig is totally cereal!"

You know nothing about economics, the scientific method, or software engineering.  In other words, you are the perfect candidate to be a useful idiot for Mikey and his puppet masters at Team Goldman.

I like your way of communication. You give me every time a laugh when i read how you attach something to what i said so that it sounds like i wrote something indecent. For example... you making me making misusing the holocaust. Great idea though a little bit inappropriate i think. Well, i forgive you since it shows that you think you can't solve the conversation on a factual level.

Which hypothesis? Only because you claim the blocksize limit was implemented for checking out a hypothesis does not make your statement true. In fact it is utterly wrong. So you can come up with that argument all the time, it doesn't change the fact that you made that argument up. The blocksize limit never was implemented to test a fee market.

Well, i know all these "arguments" against a climate change happening. It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article. Pretty much every of these nonsense claims are dissected there. Well, some people seem to want to believe what they want to believe. Maybe it feels better to "know" that you are part of a small group that really knows what is going on.

Shut up you Nazi... *rofl* you know, i can't get myself to being angry at you with having to laugh so much.

[brg444]

It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article.

Yes, Wikipedia, the indisputable bearer of scientific truth 

[Carlton Banks]

It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article.

Yes, Wikipedia, the indisputable bearer of scientific truth 

Or truth on any matter that threatens the establishment's narrative. Although, amusingly, even Wikipedia can't hold that particular tide back.

[SebastianJu]

It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article.

Yes, Wikipedia, the indisputable bearer of scientific truth 

I did not say that wikipedia does not get manipulated. We know that media agencies have their people in there, even admins, that can change the text slightly so that the products or companies they have to advertise look better.

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever. I think bitcoiners should be able to value decentralized efforts.

[brg444]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.