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

[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.

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

[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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

[hdbuck]

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Yes! me! me! I got one...

[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.

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

[Carlton Banks]

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

The evidence.

Evidence exists that Hearn and Andresen intend to take Bitcoin over, they state it themselves openly. Where is the evidence that Blockstream bought the Bitcoin dev team? (there is abundant evidence to the contrary, but none that supports your claim)

[danielW]

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

Gaving is paid by the US government (MIT gets most money from gov). XT is therefore a plot by government to take over Bitcoin.  

No I dont believe the above but I am just trying to use your logic back at you.

The poisonous attacks on Blockstream and the core developers doing their best (and what they believe is best for Bitcoin), is unhelpful and divisive .

[Zarathustra]

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

Where is the evidence that Blockstream bought the Bitcoin dev team?

Good joke.

[Carlton Banks]

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

Where is the evidence that Blockstream bought the Bitcoin dev team?

Good joke.

Not to mention: my joke. Are you actually stealing my own lines from me? 

[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.

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

Gaving is paid by the US government (MIT gets most money from gov). XT is therefore a plot by government to take over Bitcoin.  

No I dont believe the above but I am just trying to use your logic back at you.

The poisonous attacks on Blockstream and the core developers doing their best (and what they believe is best for Bitcoin), is unhelpful and divisive .

It is no problem that one developer works for the MIT, for Circle, for Blockstream or any company. It is a problem when several developers work for one company.
Then it is time that this company gets competition.

[Bitcoinpro]

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Yes! me! me! I got one...

that was a funny ending to that post

[brg444]

Blockstream employees are only but a minority of Core developers

[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.

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.

First, I urge anyone trying to understand the fee mechanism to take a read at this: http://bitcoinfees.com/

Secondly, according to network deficit, fees are not sustainable as of now: https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit

Thirdly, lets put some actual number on this : nowadays, with half full blocks on average, fee/block = ~0,15BTC
https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/transaction-fees-per-block

So even after the halving, and unless there is a huge transactio and thus block space demannd (which is different from adoption as people might simply buy and hold - hence not transacting/spending), chances are that fees will stay far far behind the 12,5BTC block reward (also not taking into account the spam and/or bloat attacks, for which the block limit is perfectly justified, yet again, and all over again).

So there is no point discussing the blocksize limit, for it is economically and technically relevant to sustain the order and the security of bitcoin's network.

Besides, again, blocksize is not a solution to scaling bitcoin.

[danielW]

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?  

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

Gaving is paid by the US government (MIT gets most money from gov). XT is therefore a plot by government to take over Bitcoin.  

No I dont believe the above but I am just trying to use your logic back at you.

The poisonous attacks on Blockstream and the core developers doing their best (and what they believe is best for Bitcoin), is unhelpful and divisive .

It is no problem that one developer works for the MIT, for Circle, for Blockstream or any company. It is a problem when several developers work for one company.
Then it is time that this company gets competition.

But the intention is to make XT a reference client and Gavin as the chief developer (benevolent dictator) of Bitcoin protocol.  Coinbase said they want to make Gavin the boss of Bitcoin development.

The future trying they are trying to create is more centralised development then is now. In hypothetical scenario core-developers will be frozen out, xt 101 will gain support from majority exchanges and services and a single person (Gavin) will be in charge of reference client to enable easier decision making.

That person(s) (Gavin also Hearn) happen to be more compliant towards boot-licking centralised services corps and government,  then core-developer cypher punks.

[brg444]

Prolific posting gentlemen

Veritas you're as usual invited to fork off and kiss the ring on the way out.

[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.

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?

Didn't realize that there is a gap like that. Well, what should i say? It looks like a problem that might come up in the future.

Though something that is pretty sure is that a restricted bitcoin is a real problem. Imagine the currency of a country has a daily transaction limit. Only a certain amount of transactions can be done by the people of that country. The one who pays more might get his transaction through, others will never be able to get a transaction. The result would be that the people would be forced to abandon bitcoin. And even the ones who still want to use it would have to deal with a high amount of uncertainties. Will my transaction go through or will it stuck? Everyone would only use it if he needs to use it. Because time is essential on bitcoin especially. If you are unlucky you have 10 or even 25% less value the next day. Bitcoin would be risky then.

[SebastianJu]

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?  

Do you say those who want to make bitcoin able to keep up with the rising amount of transactions are hijackers? I think they are the normal users of bitcoin. Though maybe i misunderstood your sentence.

[RealBitcoin]

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 did some studying and found out that the fee will increase anyway.

-If you keep the 1 MB limit, then TX will compete for that 1 MB space and only the ones that pay the most will get through => AVG FEE INCREASES

-If you raise the MB limit, then you need to put in a minimum fee (which has to be increased again with further blocksize increases) to get rid of spam transactions => AVG FEE INCREASES


So the AVG FEE increases anyway.


So although I think blocksize should be increased, I advocate a very slow increase of fees, for example, following some sort of logarithmic curve.

[SebastianJu]

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.

So especially you, what do you want? Raise the blocksize limit once we are at an average of 95% filled blocks? Or do you want to go over the 1MB with legit transactions? I think when this happens then we already have a big problem. Bitcoin will lose credibility since obviously bitcoin can not be trusted anymore as one could before.

The fee market is not needed as reward for the miners, mining is obviously so rewarding that we are way more secure than needed.

So the risks bitcoin would be placed into are real, but the advantages not really important. I mean why doesn't game developers think that way "if we would develop battlefield so that it could be played on an pentium 2 then we would raise our userbase and would have more sales" They don't think that way because the game would be inferiour then. Nobody would want or use it. You can't deliver work under these premises.

[HostFat]

Question:  Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? (increasing size)

Answer (for who has missed it): http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

Just wait for the others.

[SebastianJu]

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.

Why the h... would you want such thing? Expensive transactions for what purpose? We have no poor hungry miners that need the money badly. And even if you manage to make up for the next block halving with fees then you would only make it more rewarding for big mining corporations to create a couple thousand more miners. The small miners would not earn much more at the end. Their miners worth would be diluted by those who can create miners cheaply.

I think you might be a miner. But i think you are very mistaken if you think that raising the fees will lead to more income for you. It would lead to more miners going online, diluting the additional reward to the level it was before. Because that level would be the level where it did not make sense to create more miners because the investment probably would not come back.