BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.

[hdbuck]

Carlton stop waistîg your Time with these people.

Zarahustra go fork yourself.

[VeritasSapere]

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

I have seen this repeated a lot now and I need to correct this, to be clear so that everyone understands. There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

[Carlton Banks]

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

I have seen this repeated a lot now and I need to correct this, to be clear so that everyone understands. There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I was not aware of that.

I've moved on from this static-size/scheduled-increase debate really, anyway. Like I said elsewhere, arguing about the blocksize limit is mindless, like trying to answer the question "how long is a piece of string?"

[Zarathustra]

The Hearn gang coin is open source. Your Blockstream gang coin is not.

I think gmaxwell published some alpha source code a short while ago, but in fairness, they haven't finished developing it yet.

Does the open source nature of XT make it any better that Tor support and consensus rules are compromised? By that logic, you'd be happy to have a surveillance rootkit installed on your computer, as long as you have the source code. Right?

I have seen this repeated a lot now and I need to correct this, to be clear so that everyone understands. There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

Yes. They don't want to discuss that. Instead of discussing it, they spread conspiracy shit.

[VeritasSapere]

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

[hdbuck]

you too veritassapere. fork the friggin off. noob.

[BitProdigy]

Your modified version of my axiom was: "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor."

You are now saying (bold above) you "agree" with this axiom. (I think you mean you believe the axiom is true, since I never introduced the statement or suggested it was true.) However, it's also clear from your previous posts that you clearly don't believe "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor." Is it possible you're confused about what you're really trying to say?

To clarify:

IF: Bitcoin XT eliminated the ability to run behind Tor…

THEN: It would follow that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.

BUT: Since Bitcoin XT still allows for the ability to run behind Tor…

THEN: Bitcoin XT should not be opposed.

The conclusion "bitcoin XT should be opposed" does not follow from your axioms sir. Are we clear now?

[BitProdigy]

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

beautifully constructed argument sir, I am in total agreement well done

[Carlton Banks]

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

beautifully constructed argument sir, I am in total agreement well done

Isn't that the same fallacious argument that Krona Rev ably deconstructed just a page or two back?

[Swordsoffreedom]

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

Throws in a wrench fork if mining is equal to transaction fees after revenues perpetual increases in block size results in lower rewards, lower rewards = less incentive to mine after halving = Centralization under XT.

A limited supply leads to higher transaction volume above dust = More value per transaction + Miner incentive after halving = Long term growth and development

Spin it how you want it still ='s from both viewpoints.


-
Solution A - Size Increases
Solution B - Side-chains

True Solution
- Will be determined as we approach the true date of settlement in 2016.

[Mjbmonetarymetals]

No need to scale or upgrade Bitcoin guys, BlockStream's got you covered. Everyone talks about decentralisation but at the drop of a hat everyone falls over themselves to get back to centralised solutions. 

Most Bitcoin holders have no clue about the blocksize debate, they just want a cork for that fork. As all forks are bad and could lead to blindness. 

[Krona Rev]

Your modified version of my axiom was: "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor."

You are now saying (bold above) you "agree" with this axiom. (I think you mean you believe the axiom is true, since I never introduced the statement or suggested it was true.) However, it's also clear from your previous posts that you clearly don't believe "Bitcoin XT does not allow running behind Tor." Is it possible you're confused about what you're really trying to say?

To clarify:

IF: Bitcoin XT eliminated the ability to run behind Tor…

THEN: It would follow that Bitcoin XT should be opposed.

BUT: Since Bitcoin XT still allows for the ability to run behind Tor…

THEN: Bitcoin XT should not be opposed.

The conclusion "bitcoin XT should be opposed" does not follow from your axioms sir. Are we clear now?

Thanks for the clarification. Reading the relevant portions of your comments again, I can see this interpretation, so I'm willing to just accept that I misunderstood. It would've been clearer to me if you'd asked me to flesh out the argument if you didn't accept there is such an argument. Here's the closest thing to an actual argument I gave:

Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.

[Krona Rev]

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

Great! Welcome to the thread. I agree that there's been too much ad hominem and hyperbole. It would be better if, in particular, people avoided accusing BlockStream of nefarious plans for profiteering and accusing Gavin Andreson of being a CIA mole.

I've thought about ways to try to seriously apply logic to the situation. It's tricky. Let's assume everyone on all sides wants Bitcoin to be successful. The problem is that "success" for Bitcoin means different things to different people. We could distinguish them as different predicates: successful(1), successful(2), successful(3), and so on. And beyond defining success, it's possible for people to have a variety of views on the matter: Bitcoin is successful(i) now and we must keep it successful(i). Bitcoin is not successful(i) now and we must make it successful(i).

It might be possible to model the situation using some kind of modal logic or directly with Kripke semantics. There's the world as it is today, and then there are multiple possible worlds* that may follow. In some of those accessible possible worlds, Bitcoin would be successful(i) and in others it would be unsuccessful(i). Different choices about the development of Bitcoin change the world and so change the possible worlds that can follow. It's probably best that I stop here and continue if there's interest or criticism.

*Sometimes people object to the way "possible worlds" sounds and prefer something like "possible states of the world." They're the same in the way I'm using it here.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

It sounds like your primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is that significantly more people use it than currently do. Is that correct? Would you consider Bitcoin successful if, say, it kept the same number of users as now (give or take a factor of two)?

[VeritasSapere]

It is nice to see that some real philosophers have joined the discussion, I am a philosopher as well. I have constructed a simple argument of my own, you are welcome to try and rebuttal. There has been a lack of rational responses to my arguments so far, and far to much ad hominem and hyperbole. I believe that good philosophy should be simple.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly, and instead we will be "forced" to us 3rd party payment processors.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers, since miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption, to me it seems clear that increasing the block size would lead to more decentralization as a whole compared to keeping the restriction in place.

I can go into much more detail of course but I would like to keep it simple in the interest of constructive argument.

Throws in a wrench fork if mining is equal to transaction fees after revenues perpetual increases in block size results in lower rewards, lower rewards = less incentive to mine after halving = Centralization under XT.

A limited supply leads to higher transaction volume above dust = More value per transaction + Miner incentive after halving = Long term growth and development

Spin it how you want it still ='s from both viewpoints.


-
Solution A - Size Increases
Solution B - Side-chains

True Solution
- Will be determined as we approach the true date of settlement in 2016.

First of all you are not actually countering my argument here, you are arguing from a different point. Since mining centralization and decentralization from the users perspective are different things even though they are related.

I can counter this however, since I am a miner myself and have never believed that increasing the block size would lead to increased centralization of mining. Firstly you say that if we do not increase the block size you believe that there would be higher rewards for miners. I do not think that this is true, I think that it is more likely that there would be an increase in the reward for mining when there is increased adoption with an increased block size. Since there would be more transactions to collect fees from, especially if Bitcoin could gain the type of volume that Visa for instance presently does. As opposed to collecting fees of a lower amount of transaction that have a higher fee.

Secondly you claim that when there is less incentive to mine that there will be more mining centralization, I also do not see how this is true since mining incentive within the Bitcoin network is meant to be a self balancing system. The burden of proof is on your end for this particular statement, so i will wait for your response on that.

So in my opinion we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners into the future. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house so to speak would provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work block chain. It would also be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would also help Bitcoins survival into the future. There does need to be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future but I do not think that time is now since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low.

[VeritasSapere]

It sounds like your primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is that significantly more people use it than currently do. Is that correct? Would you consider Bitcoin successful if, say, it kept the same number of users as now (give or take a factor of two)?

My primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is not just that significantly more people use it then currently do, however I do believe that this is an important criterion, but quite pointless by itself if Bitcoin became like Visa for instance. So increasing adoption while maximizing decentralization and financial freedom would be a more accurate criterion for me.

[hdbuck]

...
So in my opinion ...

lol fork your opinion. noob. you mean nothing.
even dogecoin woulndt want anything to do with you.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

...
So in my opinion ...

lol fork your opinion. noob. you mean nothing.
even dogecoin woulndt want anything to do with you.

hdbuck is the poster child for Core.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

With the ideas involved here the Bitcoin network could be gradually, and without coercion of the participants, be organically replaced by an improved 'pegged' system... if thats what people wanted.

source here


The key word here is "replaced".  With all the kerfuffle about block size, people forget that to make blockstream viable, bitcoin has to change.

[Krona Rev]

It sounds like your primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is that significantly more people use it than currently do. Is that correct? Would you consider Bitcoin successful if, say, it kept the same number of users as now (give or take a factor of two)?

My primary criteria for the success of Bitcoin is not just that significantly more people use it then currently do, however I do believe that this is an important criterion, but quite pointless by itself if Bitcoin became like Visa for instance. So increasing adoption while maximizing decentralization and financial freedom would be a more accurate criterion for me.

Perhaps it's good to separate between necessary conditions vs. sufficient conditions for success. You seem to be saying that significantly more people using Bitcoin is not sufficient, because decentralization and financial freedom are necessary.

Propositionally we could assert that the following would be true in every world:

SD: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is successful." -> "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

Or, if we want to be classical and avoid implication, the following are both always true:

SD: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin is decentralized."
SFF: "Bitcoin is unsuccessful." or "Bitcoin supports financial freedom."

I agree that both decentralization and supporting financial freedom are necessary. (In fact, now that I've clearly stated this, I'm not sure I currently consider Bitcoin "successful." I would tend to consider Bitcoin to be successful at the moment, but I also believe that mining is currently too centralized.)

Is a signficant increase in adoption necessary? By "significant" here I mean something more than twice the current users. I haven't thought deeply about the specific numbers. I can try an absolute percentage just to be precise. Is it possible for Bitcoin to be successful if less than 0.1% of the people in the world use it? Actually, I'm inclined to distinguish between "use it directly" (meaning the individual holds the private keys and sends transactions to be included into the block chain without using a third party service) and "use it indirectly" (via third party services). "Mass adoption" would very likely give different percentages for direct use and indirect use (as has the current level of adoption). You can decide if "use it" means "use it directly" or "use it indirectly" -- and you can adjust the percentage -- before deciding on an answer.

(Incidentally, while I find the discussion interesting, I can't be online often. If I don't reply quickly, or even daily, it's not with ill intent.)

[hdbuck]

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.